-- Ya, in the first few seconds I mispronounced Jacob Blake's name. FML. I'll try to fix. -- I didn't mean to suggest that the gun crossed state lines. My point was actually the opposite: people were making a big deal about Rittenhouse or his gun "crossing state lines" when it probably didn't matter to the provocation analysis. Even if that had been the case, it probably wasn't a crime or tort that could have served as the predicate for provocation. -- "Being attacked" does not automatically mean you can use deadly force in self-defense. Your force must be proportionate and reasonable; you cannot use deadly force "unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself." -- By that same token, unarmed people can generate such a fear; being unarmed doesn't necessarily mean no one can ever use deadly force against you (sorry for the double negatives!).
@@walkingonmygrave welcome to the new castle doctrine, where someone can go to a school with a gun, and kill people if they try to detain him, for carrying a murder tool in a place of learning.
@@walkingonmygrave Not only that, the fact that you can use self-defense after provoking the situation is nuts. It can lead to planned murders. And let's not start talking about vigilantism. This case can set a really dangerous precedent.
The 2nd and 3rd who got shot thought Kyle was an active shooter, they were using their right to self defence to stop him but that doesn't matter. Their lives don't matter even though Kyle fled the scene all because "sEcOnD aMmEnDmEnT". The US is messed up, and all the people from the UK I've spoken with agree from what I've heard that Kyle murdered at least the second man.
@@walkingonmygrave can't do fed gun trafficking due to the gun never actually crossing state lines. Also the school zone thing is a stretch, but may be plausible. I doubt the DA would go for it.
I still can’t believe one of the first questions the prosecution asked Kyle is why he invoked his fifth amendment right to silence after being arrested
@@MrBigTrey Yes, you can be questioned if you take the stand and (since you're under oath) have to answer the questions. But Binger tried to utilize Rittenhouse's post-arrest silence on the issue (IE not making a statement to the cops/a few sentences he said to the media when he wasn't in jail) as justification for a certain line of questioning. No one has to make statements after they've been arrested which is why the judge shit a brick when he tried to go down that line of questioning. Lawyers can't even mention post-arrest silence since it's such a big deal. TLDR: Totally good to question someone on the stand, super bad to question someone as to why they didn't talk about something when not under oath/in public.
@@chadcastillo2008 the worst part was they tried to make it seem like him using his rights (that the cops read to you) was a bad thing. It was an awful job of trying the case in every respect.
@@chadcastillo2008 I don't know how this works in the US, but in many British common law countries, the police caution often includes a remark that while you have the right to remain silent, if you fail to mention something when questioned that you later rely on in court, this could harm your defence.
@@uria702 Well he hung out with white supremacists beforehand and did the ok sign. That's no proof of anything, but it definitely does infer at the very least a connection to far right politics
I swear to god, I am not a legal professional yet and every time the prosecution spoke I found so many mistakes, leading questions and some of the worst points made in history my god as someone else said in the comments "The prosecution was the best defense lawyer Rittenhouse ever had" never heard a truer statement
@@Halmir4126 Because depending on how the mistrial is declared, the prosecution can revisit it, and that (obviously) biased judge would probably not then preside over it. A mistrial doesn't necessarily mean the accused gets away with it.
The funniest part of that to me is that some of the footage came from Federal government drones. Meaning the Feds make a habit of monitoring these riots. It's almost like they know they are going to be violent.
I do hope there's a follow-up video to this one talking about the conduct _durring_ the trial. Specifically how the Prosecution seemed to be intentionally breaking rules and dropped the ball every chance they could. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if this case is studied in law school as a prime example of what NOT to do as the Prosecution. EDIT: People seem to think I am taking a side with this comment. That's not the intention. If LE did do a follow-up video, I'd like to see him address the conduct of all relevant parties; Prosecution, Defence, Judge, Media, etc. I simply used the Prosecution as the main example because it's what stuck out the most to me, a layman who has seen a limited amount of the trial itself.
@@o76923 honest to god the prosecution would never deliberately lose a case because losing as prosecution is terrible for your career on such a high profile case.
Ya know when steven crowder said "I'd rather see headlines like potential rapist shot in ditch rather than rapist violates woman?" Yeah that. One of those guys shot was a sex offender.
@@wastelandlegocheem A kiddie diddler at that! If you'd seen the live news broadcast that day (which I did in Canada.) you'd see the diddler picking a fight with Kyle on more than one occasion. Guess he didn't like a kid having power over him!?
@@jomaxgamez3840 its not morally faulty because Rittenhouse didn't know the man he was going to kill had an awful past. What could be considered morally faulty is this argument is only used as a diversion from the astounding amount of evidence and circumstances that night that point towards Kyle Rittenhouse going there having the intent to kill people with opposing socio-political ideologies
This is a grey area at best. Kyle refused to be read Miranda and then asked for a lawyer...then after all that proceeded to speak volumes to the police before his lawyer arrived. Is it really pleading the 5th when you proceed to word vomit all over the police anyway? I would argue that Kyle never intended to plead the fifth at all. He was simply saying he wanted to speak with a lawyer after giving his statement. Kyle, despite all of his "police training" nonsense failed to comprehend Miranda at its most basic.
@@Kevin_2435 to be fair, asking for a lawyer is invoking your Miranda rights. Silence or asking for counsel counts as that. Now talking after is kinda dumb but also a grey area because police in some cases are required to give you a warning that you are waiving Miranda rights by agreeing to explain what happened and what not.
@@BetaNurse68 They tried to warn him and he told them off saying "I want to talk, I want to talk." He never expressly waived his Miranda rights. I think the two things should be completely separate.
I beg to differ about the "non-deadly" force used by Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz, especially Huber because hit by a skateboard to the head can be deadly. There are cases where people were killed and permanently disabled because they were hit by a skateboard.
What's more important is that you don't wait for deadly force to be used against you because then you can't defend yourself. It's the threat of it being used against you, which is what was implied by Rosenbaum charging him when he was open carrying, Huber grabbing his gun, and Grosskreutz pointing his pistol at him.
But chose to drive down there knowing it was dangerous and chaotic. idc what the law says legality does not mean morality. Also tons of his statements afterwards, and things he has said has just shown he's an all around awful person and racist. No minority would have ever gotten away with this. He used his white privilege and was treating this scenario like he was in a movie. Tell me how one human being thinks he could stop all of the rioting going on by just bringing a gun and charging in with a firearm? In what world is that going to help anything? its psychotic white person main character syndrome at its finest. If all of the police, swat, and fbi couldn't stop this (which he supports heavily) how would he be able to on his own? He quite literally appointed himself judge jury and executioner, and became apart of the damage and chaos he was trying to stop and in no way did a single thing to make the situation better. How does shooting someone in the back running away stop all of the riots going on in the world? They also actually did tell Kyle to come and defend the area (was later revealed that the owner of the place lied) as well meaning he came with intention to use deadly force before even seeing the situation. an uneducated 17 year old is not your security or personal armed guard. That is shit Americans give other countries for doing. He didnt' stop the riots he just made everyone panic even more and caused even more rioting and violence.
He's trying to be super charitable, because if you go through it, what LegalEagle tries to say often could not be used in defense of Rosenbaum or Grosskreutz. huber on the other hand MAYBE even if he attacked with a weapon, he could have been argued doing it in immediate self defense of others. Rosenbaum nor Grosskreutz had that.
@@rebeccatrishel Apparently not. This was pretty open and shut to me and still didn't go through. If you were to try the same thing at a white supremacist rally in Kenosha you should get away with it.
@@UndyingNero The fact that you're clueless about the law hardly make Binger a bad lawyer. But at least you're willing to admit that the Kenosha rioters were, in fact, just the Left's version of white supremacists.
In his defense, this was a case he could never win. There where so many angles of video. And when all witnesses confirm selfdefense, it's impossible. His only possible way was media and political pressure. Wich is what happend. We watched media lie, still are lying somehow.. We watched politician give their piece of mind and in some cases threats to the jury and judge. We even watched the president put pressure on this.
@@AFR0MAMBA pretty sure gaige testified that he thought he saw kyle pull back the charging handle(I know kyle didn't, be he did hit the forward assist) its reasonable for gaige to assume kyle was going to shoot him. It's possible Gaige could have gotten the same verdict if he had shot kyle.
Gaige would have gotten the same verdict for sure. I don’t know why he approached him. I would have killed KR at 25 yards if I thought he was a mass shooter.
I was recently on jury duty, something I hope to never have to do again, and at the end walked away thinking that both the defense AND the prosecution had done bad jobs. This was something the whole jury admitted to feeling while in deliberation. My only advice... try to avoid any situation where you might have to be on trial because you never know if a bad lawyer will get you sent to prison because of something you did not do.
My last jury duty was so annoying. The defense lawyer kept putting words in his client and witness' mouths the entire time. We even made fun of him in the jury room while we were having lunch.
You mean to tell me Grosskruetz was chasing Kyle? He swore during his testimony he was merely running in Kyle's direction because Kyle was running away. He was not chasing.
I love how you call him a clown when you yourself don't' even know how videos are made and when they get posted, that's absolutely ironic. The only clown here is you
The name of the person shot was Jacob Blake, not Jacob Black, for reference. It's a nitpick, but for people looking up the context to the unrest in Kenosha this could be useful.
@@spinningbackkick6021 I only watched the first few seconds of the video when I made that comment. Just something I noticed quickly and wanted to point out.
Did you know that he was attempting to hijack a car of someone who he had previously raped a couple months earlier. After being tased twice, he was attempting to leave the scene with the hijacked car when the woman said "He's got my kid. He's got my keys". A car which he had put a knife in. It doesn't seem to me like the police had that much of a choice.
One element you neglected to mention was that the owner's testimony was contradicted by an employee who took the stand. His testimony, along with Black and Rittenhouse, states they asked for help. I have a feeling they committed perjury due to the potential financial risk of associating with Rittenhouse.
Regardless, you shouldn't be using a kid with no qualifications as armed security. Hire an actual professional with experience and relevant qualifications, especially if you have, as in this case, a reason to believe that there is an unusually high chance of a serious incident. So, regardless of whether or not he acted in self defense, he should not have been there in the first place, much less armed.
@@alexanderflack566 Let's broaden this net. NO ONE, not a single person, should have been there. There shouldn't have been a threat period. I agree, under normal circumstances I would hire professional security but it seems like that was a feasible option, especially considering the community is rather small. All in all had everyone not decided to torch a town over a justified police shooting, a child molester and domestic abuser would still be alive today.
@@alexanderflack566 there shouldn’t have been people burning buildings there. So the three people that got shot shouldn’t have been there either. In fact, they had a lesser moral position to be there than Rittenhouse, considering that Rittenhouse wasn’t an aggressor but a third party volunteering to provide aid.
I agree with you. But I also think that about a lot of the protestors. I don't care what the cause is, we don't need the kind of guys who engaged that kid.
@@alexanderflack566 The 1st amendment protects Rittenhouse's right to be there. Whether he should or should not have been there is a moral question, not a legal one and thus has no place in this argument. Btw none of those vandals should've have been there either, wouldnt you agree? They also shouldn't have attacked Rittenhouse, wouldn't you agree? Lots of should've would've here.
In one of the Southern States there was a black man whose house was raided by a swat team that did not properly identify themselves he defended his home from who he thought were intruders. He was found not guilty on all counts. Because he believed with an unreasonable doubt that this armed team was there to kill him and his family.
People keep complaining about the judge being biased, but according to reports from other lawyers that work in that district, he's that way all the time, not just in the Rittenhouse case. Personally, I'd prefer to live in a country where the judges put the burden more on the prosecution and less on the defense. I judge that is biased towards the prosecution is terrifying.
Yeah the prosecution is the state, and the state has near infinite resources for putting forth a case, giving them even more power by siding with them during a case is not cool.
@Cool Cat because the jury had the final say? Shittenhouse shouldn't have been there. And he wouldn't have been there if people didn't think rioting solved social injustices. All of those protests achieved what? Two dead and another shot? Millions in property damage and lost goods?
@Cool Cat it’s more of a standard than a bias I’d say. There are a lot of predatory practices in manipulating defendants to confess to crimes they didn’t commit or to unknowingly incriminate themselves.
@@fkujakedmyname he had a similar standard for those words as well, don't call them something you can't substantiate. And the point of the trial was to substantiate whether or not Rosenbaum and Huber were victims. The closing arguments were allowed to use the language they'd like
Well I do have one thing to ask as you said in this video that you classified being hit with a skateboard as nonlethal; whereas it and the flat bar alongside the exposed nut are HEAVILY known for skull fractures and heavy hand/arm injuries while trying to defend from it because it becomes a gigantic lever multiplying force and a deadly weapon. Would that not be the rough equivalent as being attack with a tire iron or similar object?
And for everyone blabbing on about the first guy being unarmed and having only thrown a garbage bag; do you think after hearing that gunshot while running away that Kyle would stop and have to check that the guy chasing him wasn’t the one who shot while being chased by numerous other people while one of those people was actually armed?
A skate board is a deadly weapon, so is a wooden baseball bat. People are just trying to justify the actions of child predators and criminals. Oxymoron I know
@@timkramar9729 ya you can, but not when there’s a mob of people that would stop you to death and steal your rifle. Go back to your mothers basement now
I use to work with a guy who, during the Boston Marathon bombing, said he wished he would have been there because he would have shot the guy. I was never able to convince him that randomly shooting when you have no idea what is going on is an awful thing to do. It creates more panic, puts more lives in danger and makes the police's job a lot harder because all of a sudden, they don't know who is on what side, they just have groups of people firing at random at people they think are the perpetrator. Its a recipe for disaster.
I'm guessing people all over the world have the "hero" complex, thinking force is the way to solve stuff. Only thing is, most other places of the world know not to make it easy for the heroes to be to get a gun. Still don't understand north american mentality, tbh. I feel like when you have had a "right" for a long time, getting it removed feels like an assault, even if said "right" actually harms you.
I was living in Boston when the bombing happened the fall out was chaotic enough if your friend did this he'd probably be in jail because he'd have most likely shot an innocent we didn't know who the perps were until they themselves brought attention to themselves by getting in a firefight with the cops.
“The guy” is working in the Wisconsin legislature now, apparently. The instructions are basically “shooting people is bay, yo, so we want to encourage it with this insane law.”
@@ismaelibanez9545 So in the frontier cultures of north America the natives and the wildlife were very dangerous and would require the need of protection by your own means, practically this was necessary and would follow into the revolution. The intention of the second amendment is pretty obvious that it was both a stake of decentralization in the polity sense but further is a populist sentiment on the liberal ideal. The right to bear arm's is basically a clause made by people who're essentially aware of history and aware that any state no matter how nobly concieved must have the necessity to take matters into their own hands. We would warn against this generally, and most who adhere to the right generally do but it was primarily something so when the state fails as it often tends to do that the people would have a right to practically act in their own best interest.
Please include the sound in videos. Kyle running away yelling “friendly friendly friendly, then Rosenbaum yelling “you won’t do shit” and “F**** you” as gunfire is going off and he lunges at Kyle. Then the crowd that knows he is running to police literally visible down the street decide to take law into own hands and chase him yelling “GET Him, CRANIUM HIM!” I can see not including Kyle’s testimony, but it wasn’t his lone testimony that corroborate Rosenbaums overtly aggressive behavior. There is multiple other witnesses describing him saying he would kill and rip hearts out. There is footage of him that night setting fires and screaming “N*******s” in the faces of the people standing there. How can you omit that crucial information? Threats matter especially when they appear to be acted out.
Because this is a youtube video, not a courtroom itself. And I'm pretty sure LE would rather not get demonitized or have any other disciplinary actions taken by UA-cam
@@fangsabre Then don't talk about the case. No point in discussing it if its going to be one sided and leave out very crucial details that apply to it.
@@fangsabre ...and you accused me of deflection!?! When facts are presented it seems you are the one who deflects or makes excuses. Are sure you are not studying law at the same college as Binger went to?
@@scrateswpo1659 I'd say it's a decent enough topic of discussion if we can avoid getting heated about it. Learning from the past helps us craft a better future.
Nah, grosskreuts approached an armed fleeing individual, not running from an armed pursuer. That's why it wouldn't be interpreted as self defense. The reason he ended up getting shot was when he lunged towards Rittenhouse while lowering his firearm towards Rittenhouse. The amount of hesitation displayed by Rittenhouse is arguably extraordinary. He gave the first man a chance to run when he turned around and the man stopped and only fired when that same person closed the distance anyway. The second person lunged at Rittenhouse and attempted to kick him, this was after following Rittenhouse and then pursuing him after he fell over. The third man attempted to use a blunt force weapon in the form of a skateboard and didn't get shot until he landed his hit on Rittenhouse's head. Finally, Grosskreuts who similarly pursued an armed individual, proceeded to approach him with a weapon drawn and then lunged towards him after being given the opportunity to back away. For all of the surprisingly unbiased takes you gave on this matter, acting like it's remotely possible given the evidence that a jury would come to the conclusion that the attackers (legally correct now) were ever justified to "defend themselves". In each of their cases, it's like the opposite of Duty to retreat, where apparently you think they had a duty to pursue. Just as I thought you had an inkling of hope of being remotely watchable. How unfortunate that you're part of our justice system.
Objection - misstating the record. I think it's important to note that although the owners of car source (the Khindri brothers) did indeed testify in court that they didn't ask Kyle or anyone else to protect their business, there was conflicting testimony in court by Rittenhouse, Black and Smith. Additionally, at least according to the defense, there is apparently at least some indication in the police's report from when the interviewed the Khindri's that they believed the Khindri's were lying about not asking Kyle or anyone else to protect the business, possibly because they were concerned about possible civil liability. And finally, we know for certain that at least 1 of the Khindri brothers perjured himself on the stand, when he testified that he "had never met, talked to or even heard of Kyle Rittenhouse", however, there is photo evidence of Kyle, Dominick Black and Nick Smith (in addition to several other "militia members") talking, hanging out and taking photos together at the dealership on the day of the shooting.
@@kdsquire99 maybe you missed it, but Rittenhouse was not "acting dangerously". He didn't attack or provoke anyone. Quite the opposite actually, he was ambushed as he was using a fire extinguisher. So if you saw a parking lot full of cars lit on fire and you saw a man using a fire extinguisher to put them out, and he also so happened to have AR-15 strapped to his chest, you think you would attack him? For what reason?
At 14:02, you forgot to mention that he testified that Rittenhouse didn't shoot at him until he lowered his hands and pointed the gun at Rittenhouse the second time
@@DK-ed7be dude, come on. Cut the guy some slack, no matter what he does or doesn’t say people are gonna berate him. While I’m sure his political views affect his view, maybe give him the benefit of the doubt. -this coming from a conservative
That’s because legal eagle is biased. He says so many dumb things here. Hell, so many wrong things, like Gaige would be defending himself if he shot Kyle, which is just not true given that Kyle was running to police.
Like your videos, but I disagree with your assessment that Grosskreutz could have used the self defense argument. He is on video chasing down Rittenhouse. Not sure he could argue he feared for his life
good point! I was thinking maybe Legal Eagle made a good point, but what you said is true too. I really didn't like that Grosskreutz guy. Seems like a real tool. And to fake-surrender so you can try to kill someone, just leaves a bad taste.
@N Fels Walking around an active riot without being part of the many regulated, citizen's militias willing to make a blind eye to the fact he was under 18. A vigilante with a gun is a vigilante with a gun, he's asking for it (unless he was part of the, I repeat, many citizen's militias in place that night, he could've tried to put that fire down while being covered by a militiamen squad, you know, Escalation and engagement? CONservatives talk a lot of macho crap about war and weapons, but seems that they're tactically Rworded, Meal Team Six is real). He wanted to play Johny Hero Vigilante in a situation where he knew he could get away with murdering a leftist/brown person, because he's been indoctrinated to be a Brown Shirt, virtually since birth, just like the vast majority of American kids growing and conforming to a CONservative. There's nuance to self defense, unless you want to work under the "look at what you made me do" logic, which is consistent on how CONservatives are abusive by nature.
One of the problems of gaige being able to claim self defense is he was chasing a retreating ‘threat’ this makes him the provoker now. He never retreated. As soon as Kyle took his gun off gaige, gaige point his gun at Kyle. (Admited in his own testimony) at that point Kyle shot him.
You left out the fact that Anthony Huber grabbed the barrel of his gun and tried to yank it away from him after hitting him with a skateboard while he was on the ground.
You wouldn't try to take their gun away if you believed they were an active shooter? The active shooter policy at my uni was to charge down the shooter if he entered a classroom. They're effectively enacting a typical active shooter policy.
@@Rwdphotos grabbing a firearm by the barrel and pointing it at your chest is a good way to get ventilated. Even giving Huber the benefit of the doubt that he believed he was attempting to disarm an active shooter, he bypassed the first two policies when dealing with an active shooter as outlined by the Department of Homeland Defense. First is evacuating the area, second is of you can't evacuate then hide and third as a last resort attempt to disarm the shooter. Your school didn't tell you to hunt and rush a shooter in the hallway but to do so if they entered the same classroom as you. One of the biggest issues with self defense laws is that they can become murky. Huber could have acted with every good intention but that doesn't invalidate Kyle's right to self defense. There is even a possibility that if Huber would have came out on top that he could have been sued because he would have had to prove that he believed his life was in immediate threat. That is kind of hard to prove when he had to chase the threat down.
@@Rwdphotos That’s the problem Kyle wasn’t an active shooter are you suggesting that he get punished because someone thought he was something that he wasn’t?
@@johnny.V03 it doesn't really matter if he was or wasn't; he was shooting at people, so people thought he was a shooter. If a cop got a report that there was a shooter in an area, and he comes across a guy shooting a gun at people, he's most likely going to drop the guy
I appreciate this video. But I would have liked to see more analysis of the trial itself and some of the major mistakes the lawyers made on both sides. A lot of people are saying the prosecution did a terrible job and I’d like to see what you think about that.
He did, check it out! In his video about the controversy around the judge, he goes over the many mistakes that the prosecution makes. It did seem to be lacking on the defense's mistakes though
He obviously didn’t watch the trial. So that’s a big ask. Although, I suppose it’s possible he did watch the trial. Which makes this “analysis” even more egregious.
I think Rittenhouse's unequivocal attempts to retreat in combination with Grosskreutz's testimony will make it impossible for a reasonable person to conclude that he did not act in self-defense.
Literally no way a reasonable person sees this as anything other than self defense. Anybody claiming other wise is just showing you to stay away from them
9:56 this has been used since ancient times. I remember reading upon a late medieval account of someone being sentenced to death for murder, because he got beaten in a tavern, he was unarmed at that point, he left the tavern, went to a friend, asked him to give him his dagger he gave him for safekeeping, returned to the tavern and stabbed his assaulter to death. The argument was that if he had his dagger on his person from the beginning, it would have been self-defense and he would have been acquitted. But by leaving the tavern to retrieve a dagger and then returning, he became a murderer.
Sounds about right. That was my thought the whole way and a lawyer not bringing that up seemed oddly suspicious to me, like he was just looking for the idea 'well the guy who got charged for murder had brought the gun in'.
The difference is in intent. In the case cited, by retreiving the dagger after the fact and returning, he showed an intent and premeditation to cause harm. Additionally, he left the place he was in danger, went to a safe location, and then returned to the danger. Even in strong self defense states, this is a no no and will get you convicted more often than not. Because by returning to the danger, you are, in effect, engaging the threat and not reacting to it. Obviously, there are factors that can complicate and change this rationale but, it generally holds. However, Kyle was armed the entire time and didn't return to the threat once retreated. So, this case law doesn't even really apply on its face.
Yep. It speaks to intent. Having a weapon on your person in a dangerous area is reasonable. Acquiring one to continue and escalate a confrontation that was otherwise ended is completely different.
Curious that Gaige Grosskreutz pointing his pistol at Rittenhouse was left out of the "simplification" of the situation. Something which he previously lied about and famously admitted to on the stand.
The fact that Rosenbaum had repeatedly been threatening to kill everybody at Car Source obviously didn't help his chances of staying alive . And it helped the Jury in determining self defence by Rittenhouse.
I don't get this rationale as if anything this seems to reflect the opposite. I'd say it did push the jury in their verdict even though that doesn't make sense for other reasons, but nobody else was trying to kill the guy and if anything they were just staying away from the guy. The other victims were responding to the shooting of Rosenbaum which goes against this line of thinking.
@@dustynesmith You don't understand why a jury might have found a kid used reasonable force in defending himself by shooting dead a convicted pedo who spent all night threatening to kill him and then chased him down a street and tried to rip his gun out of his hands?
21:37 This is a really shit take. This is basically saying that no form of self-defense should be acceptable, and that if you were attacked and defended yourself you could be murdered because someone else thought you murdered someone. At the time, Grosskreuz was not in peril. Kyle Rittenhouse was running away. You can't argue that would be self-defense. Even IF Kyle had murdered someone, unless you witnessed it first hand and were able to either defend yourself or others in that moment, Grosskreuz would have been convicted of murder.
"Grosskreutz then puts his hands up while armed with a pistol". But he then lowered his arms, and levelled his (illegally owned and carried) pistol at Kyle Rittenhouse. That was the point at which Kyle Rittenhouse shot him.
I don't think the "illegally owned and carried" part is relevant, seeing as the legality of ownership doesn't have any effect on whether Kyle Rittenhouse was justified (since there's no way he even could've known), and more importantly, because gun control is wrong and fundamentally illegitimate.
@@NathanTAK "because gun control is wrong and fundamentally illegitimate." There are quite a few laws I think are wrong, but that doesn't mean I can simply ignore them. Also the prosecution argued (unsuccessfully) that Kyle Rittenhouse had an illegal gun, in an attempt to weaken his defence, so what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
@@BedsitBob You don't have to ignore them, but I would argue that it's poor form to go out of your way to call attention to someone's status as having violated a law you consider immoral, unless your point in doing so is to criticize it. After all, there is no _shame_ in breaking an unjust law. Also I'm interested in the "sauce for the goose" thing; it's _"good_ for the goose" where I live (Pacific Northwest), and interdialectic variation is fascinating.
@@NathanTAK Yet the prosecution drew attention to Kyle Rittenhouse (allegedly) breaking that same unjust law. As for "what's sauce for the goose", it's a British saying, which I presume comes from the idea you put sauce on goose, when eating it.
@@Birrrrra self defense laws allow the use of force to prevent harm or potential death from happening to someone else. For example, if you see someone walking around attacking people and causing them harm, you are allowed to step in and stop the attack.
My opinion would be, he was not actively engaging anyone with his firearm, until he was assaulted. I couldn't find a reasonable escape from that situation, when Kyle tripped and fall to the ground.
He also restrained from shooting other people coming at him because he had the wherewithal to acknowledge them retreating when looking down the barrel of an AR-15.
Bashing someone over the head 3 times with a skateboard is most certainly deadly force, not even arguably. You'd have to have never actually held a skateboard to think that's debatable. It'll maybe hurt you a bit more than a baseball bat by virtue of being more awkward to hold, but it's essentially the same for the person you're whacking.
It's like the people who think that screwdrivers aren't deadly weapons. If it can be used to kill, then it's potentially a deadly weapon. It depends on the intent of the user, and Huber's intent is pretty obvious.
If you are wielding a firearm and are attacked, a threat of deadly force is always present as your weapon can be taken from you and used against you. This is a defense that is used frequently defending police officers in incidents of shooting unarmed citizens. If it works for an officer, it should work for a civilian, the law doesn't change if there are no other crimes factoring in.
@@mnomadvfx but they ran after him. and brandishing and open-carry are different, whether or not you think it should be legal is irrelevant here. he was open-carrying, not brandishing.
It really only becomes justified if they try to take the gun away from you, and if you didn’t brandish or draw it first. If you’re fighting with someone and the gun stayed in the holster as a civillian and they try to take it from you, that’s the same as a deadly force threat
The prosecution has the burden to disprove self-defense in Wisconsin. The defense just has to claim it. That was argued many times during the case because the Prosecution kept trying to trick the judge into thinking they didn't have to.
I mean when discussing duty to retreat and self defense.... three men got shot and not a single one of them was running away from Kyle. Kyle shot three people, he was running away from all three of them.
The last person he shot was aware he was an active shooter fleeing the scene. If he was really afraid of an armed man he would've disarmed him after shooting him. That's ignoring the rending first aid or calling 911 immediately....
@@Novellization no, the last person thought Kyle was working for the police (per his own testimony), that's probably why he decided to try executing Kyle. Also you should probably look up the definition of active shooter, Kyle doesn't even come close.
@@Novellization McGinnis, while rendering first aid to Rosenbaum, was struck in the back of the head by one of the rioters, and you're proposing Rittenhouse should have stayed there to also render first aid? To what end? So he could be beat to death by the rioters?
@@cormoran2303 the actual testimony is that he thought that would be, and didn't attempt to render aid or call real first aid responders. He did run to call his friend, then his parents and finally to chit chat with "like minded" people he met that night. After you lawfully shoot a man, you stay to render aid and wait for law enforcement. Did you not get this info at CC class? Wait lemme guess....
The thing I've learned from this simply because of how much of the video it took up: regardless of who started it, criminality can change fast depending on who ended it and how and why.
It wouldn't change here considering the video evidence showing hesitation and retreat at every turn by Rittenhouse and relentless pursuit on the part of the people he shot at. Remember kids, it isn't self defense if you chase down the threat, that's vigilantism or murder, depending on what other evidence is available.
@@aaronsams8605 That's where intent comes in, at what point does chasing someone down change from attempted assault or worse to attempt to restrict the lethality of someone who has actually committed murder.
@satorukuroshiro it would change when the individual being chased continues to be an active threat. Rittenhouse hadnt fired a shot and I don't believe (I'm saying this without having just seen the video) raised his gun at anybody. Someone in their right mind would take the factors like the fact he was running towards a police line and keeping his weapon towards the ground and assume the person was seeking safety. I would like to know the opinions of the officers in the police line who saw it go down, but both I and the jury have already drawn a conclusion so I don't think it's worth the effort.
One correction, he was found not guilty on five of the charges, the sixth was dropped because it was agreed to be not applicable by the prosecution due to the writing of the law.
@@rugbyralph288 "Reviewed the law extensively" That's a matter of opinion. Ive now watched 3 different reactions to this video with commentary from a total of 10 lawyers and Legal Eagle seems like he doesnt actually know the applicable law. He doesnt even know the facts of the case, and if he does he is deliberately omitting some for personal or partisan reasons.
That's incorrect. The prosecution agreed that it wasn't a short barrel rifle, but still maintained that he was in violation because he did not have a hunting permit. That was 1 of 3 requirements for him to lawfully have the rifle.
@@NYCFenrir The judge still ruled that the prosecution was incorrect in their assessment. At the end of the day it is the judge's job to rule on matters of law and he did. His ruling may not have been the intent of the legislators but if so then it's the legislators fault for failing to make the legislation clear. If a law is ambiguous then it is standard practice to use the most lenient interpretation of the law. Otherwise, you end up punishing people for basically picking the wrong interpretation. After all the law is not just for the judiciary it is also for reference by the general public so that they can make sure that they're adhering to it.
I know your time was limited but I wish you would have addressed the prosecutor's bringing up Rittenhouse remaining silent or hopefully in future video. For me that was jaw dropping. There other things the prosecutor spent time on like video games and stressing that Rittenhouse had an AR-15 not some other weapon.
@@avatarblood0 malicious. Several former proxecuters have said that incompetence isn't an excuse because it's such a basic thing for prosecuters to follow. They wanted to throw the trial to get another chance at it after they messed up so many times with their witnesses.
Well the AR15 should speak to intent, insofar as choice of weapon suggests the work. When people say they have an AR15 for home defense, I laugh because it's an anti-personnel rifle for marksmen at intermediate ranges. It also throws hot brass around, to bounce off the walls and hit you in the face. A decent revolver would therefore be a better choice- and if you're fool enough to go room to room looking for an early night, at least a revolver offers far less leverage coming around a corner for a burglar to wrestle it away.
Didn't even touch on the fact that Prosecution changed it's strategy at the very end of the trial? Provocation wasn't even a thing till they brought in that Drone video and tried to pretend you could see him point his gun.... strangely enough they didn't feel the need to call the witness that they were claiming he pointed the gun at, lol.
@@dallascopp4798 so did everyone else including the prosecution lol. That claim has been debunked by sever "tech" people showing that "kyles arm" was there several frames before Kyle was aka, what they were claiming was his arm was not
As someone who didn't grow up around firearms and has gone through the CCW course in Wisconsin - I can tell you that if you don't have the CCW license or been around firearms long enough, you do not know LMTT. However, I feel it's pretty common knowledge to not point a firearm at anything you don't want to shoot (I knew this before I ever held a firearm). Sadly, this is the second attorney in a court room that I had seen mishandle a firearm in front of a jury. They really should have a professional train everyone in the court on how to handle a firearm, even if it's been checked and cleared by another when there's a case involving one.
Great explanation. I would ask, looking at the docs you have up at 5:25, section 2b says that the privilege lost is regained by withdrawing. That's where I landed on the vid of Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse is in full retreat there. Even if he ever had provoked and lost the self-defense claim, certainly sprinting away from the attacker counts as withdrawing, right?
Especially considering he was chased to a literal corner & was boxed in like an animal (a wall of cars to be precise) Also at 20 mins in hes not taking into account the threat of a VIOLENT MOB! It wasnt just one person's kick, it was an entire crowd of people with weapons (melee weapons can be seen when they're chasing him) so the threat of obvious bodily harm is CLEARLY apparent. They didnt even need to take his gun for that. Violent mobs can tear you limb from limb man. I feel like hes in a very comfortable place & isnt putting himself in his shoes of being chased like that. Legal eagle himself would be fearing great bodily harm or death! I will give him that of course hed never put himself in this situation like how kyle did but still. But yeah he was judging each "weapon" whether foot, gun, or skateboard on its own but not taking into account that the weapons were combined together & with more coming. I'd also add that kyle did clearly try to retreat as much as he possibly could have If you look up people hurt in riots it gets grim quickly, people torn into different directions or being crushed under tons of stomps. Not letting yourself get into that situation is what anyone would do because once your at their mercy, well that's just it. Your life is literally at their mercy
@@KeatrithAmakiir um... Rosenbaum was the first guy shot. How was Kyle running from a "murder" only to shot the first time... your statement proves you know nothing about thus situation.
@@cjtuckerbpmc what? Dude maybe try to read my comment before uttering so stupidity. 1 Kyle defended himself. 2 I'm glad he killed a pedo. 3 I was pointing out the fact the guy said Rosenbaum was chasing Kyle because Kyle had shot someone which is impossible because Rosenbaum was the first person shot. Seriously take a reading comprehension class.
Some of the facts you put out are different than facts that were what was said at the trial. Such as the man that got shot in the arm said Kyle did not shoot at him until he pointed a gun at his head.
@@lupuswarrior6785 Yes it should matter on a youtube channel that has this much influence/reach and claims to review legal cases according to the trial. This was such a transparent trial with evidence available to anyone that googles it.
The Wisconsin law is interesting is that it applies a duty to retreat to anyone who may have provoked an attack through their conduct. The trouble that the prosecution had, even before the trial started, is that all the video footage shows Rittenhouse retreating the whole time. Under Wisconsin law, this made pretty much whatever happened prior irrelevant. It didn't matter if you think Rittenhouse had no right to be there, or if Rittenhouse had provoked the incident, or if Rittenhouse and gone to the street with the intention of being violent - none of that had to do with the law. In fact, the Wisconsin law explicitly says that you regain the right to self-defense if you make every attempt to retreat out of the bad situation you put yourself in. In short, the Wisconsin law basically says, "Don't chase people. If you do, you lose the right to self-defense and whomever you are chasing it regains it." I looked up the Wisconsin law within 24 hours of the incident, read through it, and then watched the extensive videos that were available. And I knew pretty much immediately that he was not guilty of murder under Wisconsin law. In fact, it was so obvious that he was not guilty of murder under Wisconsin law, that it was obvious that if the case were not politicized that the prosecution would never have undertaken to bring those charges. You claim that reasonable minds can differ about his. I disagree. This is a self-serving and nakedly stupid argument. Reasonable minds can differ about whether the Wisconsin law is just. They can't differ about whether he is guilty under that law. If you find Rittenhouse guilty under this law, there is something definitely not reasonable about you. It would require for you to believe, for example, that Rosenbaum is acting perfectly reasonably to chase a man with a rifle for 40 yards after having threatened to kill that man. I ask you, if you would chase a guy with a rifle in that manner? Because if your answer is, "Yes.", I'd question your sanity. Likewise, it would require me to believe that if I were chasing you in this situation, you would not fear for your life. That also is an unreasonable belief, since you couldn't possibly no what sort of person I am. As it happens, after the fact, we know that the man was a convicted pedophile that had just been released from a mental institution, so it seems likely (after the fact of course) that Kyle's beliefs were not only reasonable, but not even actually mistaken. But, again, you wouldn't need to know that to suspect that someone that chased you for 40 yards was dangerous. If I chased someone across a parking lot who was carrying a rifle, my reason is that I would be very likely to get shot. If someone tells me that they don't think that, I conclude they aren't a very reasonable person. Likewise, while it might be possible for both parties in a violent conflict to be acting in self-defense, the trouble is that under Wisconsin law that's impossible in this case because only one side was excercising a duty to retreat. Either Rittenhouse was provocative or not, but if he was provocative, he was retreating and therefore regained the right to self-defense. And if he was not provocative then well, he was just being attacked and therefore had the right of self-defense. But the same argument can't apply to the people chasing him! That's why your alternative reality argument is nonsense. Now, if you want to have a really interesting argument about something reasonable people might disagree about, let's question that claim that Rittenhouse made a bad situation worse. Because at least that claim is disputable, whereas I find no evidence whatsoever that under Wisconsin law this wasn't self-defense.
@@shangri-la-la-la Even then, that’s still protecting the city there, and it’s clear given that was there simply positively, given that he was proving medical aid. Like in every single possible way, he was justified and heroic for what he did
How in the world do you think multiple attackers, one using a skateboard as a weapon, are enacting non-deadly force? Any CCW course would teach you that multiple attackers and a weapon that can cause extreme bodily harm is grounds to use deadly force in defense.
I've known since the first five seconds I've ever heard this guy talk that he was a biased and politically driven figure. His name is insulting to eagles
Same with being kicked in the head while being on the ground... It also constitutes deadly force. I'm shocked that a lawyer would brush over this fact.
Hopefully Kyle Rittenhouse will sue Devin Stone. Although I'm sure Devin doesn't have the balls to cover how Rittenhouse is legally going after the people guilty of libel and slander.
"Sometimes you just have to take a beating." While the trial was in progress, in my community, an unarmed career criminal, out on probation, beat a 36-year-old Hispanic man TO DEATH. Just saying.
Submit to the mob is something you can haphazardly say when you aren't the one being run down at night while gunshots are going off and people are shouting and running at you. It's not your life or health on the line, so what if some Kenosha kid gets brain damage when his head hits the pavement or worse. You go about your life all the same. You can't live your life with the hindsight to trust people that, in real hindsight, were actually criminals to begin with. If someone runs you down knowing you are armed, they have far worse intentions than just disarming you. It is self evident.
@@KrazyKaiser If you watched the trial, and not just an extremely distorted take of it, you would know that in the closing statements, the prosecution told the jury 'Sometimes you just have to take a beating'. The OP is giving an example of what can happen when you 'take a beating', and why Rittenhouse was absolutely within his rights to defend himself.
@@jackoh991 Firstly, LEagle mentioned racial statistics IN THIS VIDEO and completely overlooked the fact that Kyle Rittenhouse himself IS a minority. Kyle Rittenhouse is Hispanic. That's why it's important. Rosembaum, an unarmed career child diddler who was released from a mental institution THAT NIGHT went to a racial protest, yelled racial slurs, made death threats, and then assaulted a minor. The case of Kyle Rittenhouse is MUCH WORSE, and the fact you're not aware of why shows why LEagle is a failure as an educator.
22:20 Objection Misstating the evidence. The problem with the Grossgreits(spelling?) argument is kyle was actively running away from him at this point and no longer presenting an immediate danger and arguably has regained his innocence at this point in the confrontation. This is apparent by Gross himself running up to kyle and questioning him as he ran away. No reasonable person would run up to someone who they thought was an active shooter or a danger to themselves and angrily demand answers. Its just not reasonable.
Again, it goes both ways. In the Tucson shooting of Gabby Giffords, unarmed people approached and subdued the shooter. Is that "unreasonable"? What reasonable unarmed person would approach an armed person who has already demonstrated the intent to kill? As for attempting to subdue versus angry questioning, the attempt to, you know, "ask questions first, shoot later" is arguably more reasonable over the inverse. And the intent was to question, not self-defense. That would, at worst, constitute provocation which brings us back to the arguments that supported Rittenhouse, but for the other party. In other words, any justification for Rittenhouse's conduct can arguably be granted to any of the parties involved. They all could have legally killed one another. It was a free-for-all -- fun to think about. Thanks for trying to drop a formal objection in your UA-cam comment hot take though. Your law degree and bar certification will be arriving via certified mail in six to eight weeks.
Grosskreutz became the provocateur when he initiated an interaction with a retreating Rittenhouse. He pulled a gun out after chasing Kyle. Therefore he needed to apply that duty to retreat as the provocateur before deadly force would be acceptable, which he most certainly did not meet.
It could be argued as reasonable. There are lots of circumstances of people confronting and challenging active shooters or shooters in general. Especially if it's a dynamic situation and multiple people (who might be the potential shooter) are carrying weapons.
If you discharge a loaded firearm and people are still willing to attempt to attack you, it is frightening to think what would deter them without the use of deadly force.
@@zacharywheat6371 Sure.... if said person was running around shooting people, not just escaping. Even if you think he is a murderer trying to escape, Your first reaction mustn't be running behind him trying to attack him. Specially when you can be wrong, like all these people who were wrong in their suppositions and end up death/injured.
Every pro gun person out there thinks that way. The idea of stopping mass shooters for instance. All these people saw this guy gun down a man that was trying to potentially get the gun out of the hands of a clearly trigger happy teenager. Every person there was justified in attacking him both legally and morally.
@@yetekt6953 ya, criminals tend to flee the scene of their crime. Probably realized that people weren’t very happy with his decision to murder somebody. Not to mention all the gun pointing. People were on edge to begin with and then he goes and actually starts pulling his trigger.
Conveniently did not show or mention that Gaige pointed his pistol and advanced on Rittenhouse before getting shot. That omission is a very big deal. Would be worth noting that Rosenbaum was threatening to cause severe bodily harm to multiple people earlier, including Rittenhouse, which is part of the self defense.
That’s when he tried to sit there and say that Kyle‘s making shit up by saying he’s making a self-aggrandizing statement. He’s glossing over the fact that many people testified to the threats and simply saying no such thing existed really.
@@ThatsaToilet it is far worse. LE wants you silenced and put in an oven to die. It is not even human like and should be sent to the same gulags it wants gun owners, libertarians, and free speech advocates sent to. I have watched it for years and and his hatred of America and freedom grows stronger each day. It will call on the stooges at the FBI to fix me or at least put me on a deplorable list.
Idk man, I'm not an American, but it seems to me that the only reason there's any controversy over this case is because of its hyper-politicisation. I would have thought this was a pretty cut and dried case of self-defence, even if there had been a duty to retreat law in place. I don't how you could watch that footage and not conclude that Kyle was retreating and in imminent danger, if not necessarily of death, then at least of getting the shit beat out him, and he really didn't have any other options available to him.
A BLACK guy named Andrew Coffee shot at police Bc they executed a no knock warrant. He didn’t know it was police and argued self defense on a murder charge he got after the shooting. Jury acquitted him the SAME DAY AS KYLE RITTENHOUSE WAS ACQUITTED. You never heard about Andrew Coffee Bc the media never reported it because it doesn’t fit their narrative that a black guy would’ve been found guilty if they were in Kyle’s shoes that night.
I can't believe people are still arguing about this. There are hours of footage that clearly show what happened. Choosing not to see the truth in those videos is just denial at this point.
@@Trottelheimer its selfdefense. the only reason you can not see that is if you are politically entrenched and see rittenhouse as your opponent. in both situations, rittenhouse tried to remove him self from said situation. in both situations, he was attacked first. in both situations, he had to fear for his life or great bodily harm. moraly and legaly, its self defense.
Rittenhouse had no business being there. He shot three people. He didn't try to give medical attention to the three people he shot. He fled area after shooting three people. He failed to turn himself in to police after shooting three than crossed a state line after committing felonies to go home. Rittenhouse should of gone to prison 10 years minimum
@@puellamservumaddominum6180 rittenhosue had more reason being there then any of the people he shot. he did not try to give medical attention to the people he shot because there was a hostile mob that just tried to kill him, remember? he did not flee the area but was running towards police to turn him self in (we have that on video). that they told him in no uncertain terms to leave is not his fault (we have that on video as well). once home, he did turn him self in. and.. all of these things having quite literally nothing to do with the question of 'was that self defense?'
@@TheLoki7281 so you really think Rittenhouse couldn't of used his phone to call police? I am sure they would of paid attention if he said he just shot three people.
Interesting how when Legal Eagle describes the shooting of Grosskreutz he completely leaves out the fact that he pointed a gun at his head, and then brings it up later, as if these are two different incidents.
He also points out that any interpretation of this where Kyle is reasonably found innocent also applies to Grosskreutz, who approached a kid with a rifle running from a group of people who were all shouting he just shot someone. Grosskreutz had every reason to believe Kyle was a deadly threat to both himself and everyone on the street, and under the laws that said Kyle was innocent, was well within his rights to threaten and shoot Kyle. If he had, he would have saved another life. Growl about the liberal left all you like, but every civil right that applies to conservatives also applies to liberals, no matter how much you wish otherwise.
@@joshs9066 I normally like his content too. Interesting how he slants this one so much. Makes me wonder what he'd have said if it was Kayla Rittenhouse instead.
The fact that they asked him on the stand if he plays Call of Duty was laughable. For all we know the prosecutor also plays Call of Duty, question was 100% irrelevant
Rittenhouse runs, object thrown at him, points gun but does not fire, runs again, turns just before his assailant reaches him, fires. That's just the first encounter and as far as I'm concerned he showed incredible discipline there. Tried to run and his attacker asked to be shot. The idea that any of this is unclear is why we have such division in our country right now. We can't even agree on who is the aggressor when one guy is running away and the other is chasing him.
Oh, the people who think Kyle is guilty know damn well that he was being chased and was legally justified in defending himself, they just don't care because their devotion to socialism/radical leftist ideology is far more important than their appreciation of the US's legal justice system, which, in their eyes, is a corrupt system worthy of tearing down. They think he was guilty simply because he was, in their eyes, trying to stop people from achieving racial equity by burning poor and minority communities to the ground.
@@jonathanw1019 I don't know that I agree with that. Certainly, that describes why they want to believe in his guilt. That said, I think they actually do believe he was not legally justified because they are being lied to and are too lazy/uninterested in learning the truth.
"Discipline" would've actually been him staying at home and doing chores with his idiot mom. Who the duck let's their 17 year old go to a warzone for an insured business?
@@matthewbittenbender9191 Funny you mention it, but a NYT journalist went to Kenosha to investigate claims of "insured businesses" and found that most of the areas/businesses being burned and looted were in low income areas occupied primarily by smaller, minority owned stores who didn't have insurance. She tried to run it prior to the 2020 election and the NYT editors put it aside. Also, Kyle had every right to be there, if not more so than the protestors/rioters. Kenosha was more his community than the likes of Grosskruetz or the other two low-lifes who attacked him. Never mind that people have no obligation to stand aside and watch society burn should the State abscond from their duties to protect its citizens and tax-paying businesses.
Like when a guy calls 911 and admits on tape he has a gun and is chasing an unarmed child through his own neighborhood. The law still sides with the dude with the gun.
A few issues with the video. 1. You make a statement near the end that if Wisconsin had the duty to retreat, the outcome could have been completely different. I disagree, as Rittenhouse DID retreat or attempt to retreat in ALL cases...so even with a duty to retreat, he did. 2. You make a big deal of Joseph Rosenbaum being unarmed. This isn't completely relevant and here's why: We know after the fact the Rosenbaum was unarmed, but A. at the time this was taking place and Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse didn't know if Rosenbaum was armed or not. If a random guy starts chasing you, they could have a knife or gun on them, or could be unarmed. You don't know. This is important because what matters was Rittenhouse's knowledge at the time it was happening. Us finding out he was unarmed after the fact is not important. B. EVEN WITH Rosenbaum being unarmed, an unarmed man can still cause death or serious bodily harm to another. Especially if/when he went for Rittenhouse's weapon.
You forgot to add that Rosenbaum ambushed Kyle, he had a friend named Ziminski aid in the ambush, Ziminski was armed with a handgun, and Ziminski fired the first shot during the ambush. Still a good comment, just adding info
@@purplefreedom1631 Plus in some videos of the ambush, Rosenbaum was seen carrying something in his hand which many witnesses claim was a moltov cocktail but later was identified as some liquid object in a bag. Either way they ran after Kyle shortly after the security group he was with told him to hide after he had put out their dumpster fire that was blocking EMSA and Firefighters
During the closing arguments, Krouse of the prosecution tried claiming that Rittenhouse was excessive when he shot Rosenbaum. He tried claiming that the first shot entered Rosenbaum's hip, shattering it and that he was no longer a threat to Rittenhouse, therefore he did not need to fire anymore shots. The time frame from the first shot to the last shot on Rosenbaum was .73 seconds. In less than a second is anyone supposed to conclude that a threat is no longer a threat. I was taught in the military that you keep firing until you are positive that the threat is nullified. This could be the reason jump kick man did not come back to hurt Kyle any further. He would've heard two sound barrier breaking cracks go right by his ear and decided that it was better to retreat from Kyle, instead of re-engaging him.
I was taught the same but the military law and civilian law are not the same and a civil would never be allowed to kill someone while in the military it might be the objective. Even in self defense, it never states that killing someone is a reasonable reaction but rather addresses killing as a by-product of deadly force (Which is just a use of force that that is likely to kill someone) which can be argued for. All of that being said, I am with you that you cannot expect someone to make a decision on whether a threat is neutralized or not in less than a second especially since unlike movies it's not that obvious if your shot hit, or did any real damage. I think the prosecution was just grasping at straws at the end of the trial
@@yairweinberg1647 it's just a good rule in general. It was so dumb when you Biden said something about cops should shoot people in the legs first. ..... No. And the reason for that is you don't ever shoot anything you don't intend to kill. So after the aim is taken in the trigger is pulled doesn't matter how many times you shoot a person, the intention is that they die.
@@yairweinberg1647 I remember a documentary against "police brutality", there was this trial the cop lost because he was asked "if you didn't consider him a threat enough to kill him, then why did you shoot him?"
Why didn’t anyone take warning shots into account? Rosenbaum (or whoever had the pistol) fired into the air as a warning shot, demonstrating that he had no intent to hurt anyone at random. In fact, if he was intending to kill someone, the shot could have hampered his efforts by drawing attention to him. Rittenhouse could have fired at the ground as a warning shot in an attempt to scare them off, but he didn’t. Probably because he was a teenage civilian with possibly little training in firearm practices. On either side of the argument, you can’t really place Rittenhouse as completely innocent and just in his actions, because he decided to put himself in a dangerous situation with little training or credentials to effectively deal with it.
If I was a juror, and saw him running in basically every video shot from people chasing him, I'd say he met his "duty to retreat". Also, "made a move to Rittenhouse's side" is a little too "neutral" compared to what actually happened. It almost sounds like you're saying he was shot with his hands up, which was not the case.
I think it's possible he was not trying to attack Kyle. He was probably chasing Kyle to make sure he didn't get away and turned himself in to police. Once Kyle fell, Gaige started to slow down, so I think it's possible his goal was to follow Kyle at a distance, but once Kyle fell, if Gaige was running fast, it might still take him a couple dozen feet to come to a stop, so he would've closed the distance between himself and Kyle significantly. Then he raised his hands when Kyle pointed his firearm at him - a natural reaction. Apparently Gaige was trained as a medic, so his mind might have been on jumping to help others that are hurt, causing him to react more strongly than others would have to seeing the skateboard guy collapse to the ground after being shot at. So when Gaige jumped back into action (and lowered his firearm), I think it's possible that this was an instinctual reaction to try to help the skateboard guy that over-rode and caused him to forget that Kyle was holding him at gunpoint. Kyle's attention was probably less on the skateboard guy's wellbeing and more on holding back his pursuers, also a natural reaction, so he probably saw Gaige jumping to action as Gaige doing some sort of feint to try to attack him. The video does seem to show Gaige changing direction, from initially running directly towards Kyle before raising his hands, to running more like past/beside Kyle towards the skateboard guy. Moral of the story is - if you're in a heated situation and there's someone running away with a firearm and not pointing it towards anyone and you're not sure what the armed person's intents are... you should probably give him space because he doesn't really know what your intents are either.
@@Lochness19 If you said that Gaige was mistaken in trying to perform a citizens arrest, that's possible but to say that he wasnt trying to attack Kyle, I have a hard time buying that one.
@@Lochness19 the video clearly shows Gage retreat once with his hands up only to raise his right hand, the hand with the pistol, directly at Kyles head. Gage said this explicitly during the trial. He said, “ he did not fire until I pointed the gun at him”. Kyle then lifts the weapon and fires. Notice he hits Gage in the right bicep as he is lunging towards Kyle.
@@Lochness19 Gaige was as much a medic during that riot as I was. Not at fuckin all. Gaige also testified that he thought Kyle said that he was working with the police and that was why he decided to draw his gun on him.
Objection. An 11 pound skateboard being swung at someone's head is clearly use of deadly force. There have been numerous instances where skateboards were used as a weapon and the individual who used them as such was charged with "assault with a deadly weapon." In 2002, in Seattle, Timothy Strano was convicted for manslaughter for hitting Demetri Andrews in the head with a skateboard, resulting in Andrews' death 3 days later. Just this year, in San Diego, Bobby Mikel Lowe severely beat two people with a skateboard by striking them in the head with it, resulting in brain bleeds in both victims. The attacks were unprovoked and Lowe was charged with multiple counts of attempted first degree murder, aggravated mayhem, and assault with a deadly weapon.
@@zzextras99 He said it was arguable either way. And it is. He never implied that it wasn't deadly force, although I know y'all want to feel like victims and so you always have to have your backs up. Morons
i disagree on the point about grosskreutz. i doubt he could have had a successful self defence charge like rittenhouse did, because during the trial, he admitted to the defence that rittenhouse did not point or fire his gun at grosskreutz until grosskreutz had pulled out his own gun and was aiming it at rittenhouse.
I'm not so sure that, in an alternate reality where any of those three killed Rittenhouse instead, self-defense would have worked. In each one of those scenarios, they approached Rittenhouse and attacked him first, when any reasonable person would have avoided a so-called active shooter with a rifle. Just my thoughts on that thought experiment at the end.
Yeah but the moment Rittenhouse points his rifle at any of them threatening to fire on them they would likely enter the selfdefense area again. Running away from a gunman is more often than not less viable than to shoot them first if you already have your gun out.
@@DiabloDBS Wrong. You cannot argue self defense when you are charging someone aggressively, including grabbing their weapon, kicking them, hitting them with a skateboard, etc. especially if Kyle was running away when this all happened. Once Kyle was on the ground and he was surrounded on all sides, dodging physical attacks on all sides that is 100% self defense all day.
I mean, you are pretty much on point here - the mob used non-deadly force by definition until... you know, it kills him. A kick to the head is not obvious deadly force until it actually kills you, at which point it is too late.
Everyone seems to forget that the entire body is a deadly weapon when under the right conditions... Elbows, knees, the heel, a good headbutt, a good punch, a good kick. And all that against a hard surface or with a good fall?
@@HiddenRealm kicking someone in the head is grounds for a murder charge here in Germany. It is due to the fact that the perpetrator willing accepts that the damage he does to the victim becomes uncontrollable, as the amount of force doesn't allow foreseeable results.
I've been on juries, and there were times we were given jury instructions that were about as easy to figure out as some of the more obscure hieroglyphics from the Valley of the Kings. In one case I was the jury foreman, and I asked what was being talked about, and I was told that it was all there in the jury instructions and that I should not be asking questions of the attorneys and the judge. But how could we make any kind of determination if we didn't have any idea what we were supposed to be determining? This was an assault case, and the victim had stated that he'd said things about the defendant's wife (or girlfriend; I forget which) and had deserved having the stuffings punched out of him by the defendant. We ended up finding the defendant innocent, and from the prosecutor's reaction he didn't like that at all and had quite a bit to say about the "stupid jury."
I expect the reason the person couldn't give you an explanation on the instructions is because those instructions were heavily negotiated by the prosecution and defence. If someone tried to give a "simpler" explanation, then they were effectively bypassing the negotiated instructions.
@@Sewblon : If the jury can't understand the jury instructions, then not guilty is the only option. In a state of confusion, doubt is the only reasonable reaction, and not guilty is the correct reaction to doubt. As soon as the jury was told they could not ask questions, the case may as well have been immediately declared not guilty to save the trouble of useless deliberations.
19:56 I've heard that kicking a downed opponent towards the ground with a shod foot is generally considered to be deadly force - deadly force ofc is any use of force that is LIKELY to cause EITHER death or GREAT BODILY HARM. The drop kick probably would qualify as deadly force don't you think? Furthermore it seems to me that being chased down by an angry, violent mob escalated the threat to a deadly one immediately. It was never going to be a fight between Rittenhouse and his attackers; if Rittenhouse hadn't ended the threat, then it would have been a fight between Rittenhouse and perhaps a dozen or more attackers. A 12-on-1 fight is absolutely deadly force right off the bat, right?
I think he did a fair job until the end when he had to go predictably lefty. On the video he shows someones says something like, "Get his ass!" And he's attacked by _several_ people. LE even mentions cops being nearby. Shouldn't that cut against your pursuit to secure claim? To your point, every additional person exponentially increases difficulty. He also conveniently left out the video where Unicep fakes surrender then pulls the pistol at Kyle, all within maybe two seconds. Plus he was downed and hit with a skateboard which could easily debilitate someone. The whole context and rapidity of the encounter was glossed over. It's also convenient that Jump Kick Man wasn't ever made to appear despite his part in this. Also, the dead p3do who's on video daring people to shoot him the night of was also conveniently left out. This is the same guy who threw the bag at Kyle and then chased him down. Sounds quite provocative.
@@matildawagner5598 the “defenseless man” chose to chase the obviously armed teen and proceeded to grab his gun. His first mistake is obvious: he chased an individual who was clearly armed with the intent of harming him The second mistake is even greater: he tried to grab the gun from the already distressed teen that he was chasing. The only appropriate reaction to someone trying to grab your weapon and harm you (probably with the weapon if they were able to take it) is to use that weapon against them. Even more so if you’ve already given them the chance to back off, going as far as running away from the unarmed man.
That's because the prosecution had nothing to work with, apart from sleazy insinuation and dirty tricks. People should be concerned that they will employ the same tactics in every other case.
hopefully it was a slip of the tongue i would assume a lawyer knows that the law is that someone is innocent until proven guilty not the other way around. but i have heard several things before that set off red flags on this channel that make me think its less about true legality and more about curving a narrative. but that's just a feeling i get nothing i can prove.
@@pyromaniak2736 no, I'm pretty sure he cited Wisconsin law indicating the defense had a "small" burden of proving self defense, meaning the defense had to make a case for self defense, as a valid defense against Rittenhouse's charged crimes. It's at 1:30, called "affirmative defense." For example, if I hear person A shot person B with no context, I may think person A is guilty. Person A's defense might indicate person A was being attacked by person B, thus it was self defense. Oversimplification, but that's what affirmative defense vaguely looks like I think. I'm endlessly surprised by how ready people are to question experts in their field. Like, what's your background, man? On what basis do you feel you're qualified to question this guy's expertise, as opposed to learn from him? He's an adjunct professor of law, on top of being a practicing lawyer. He knows "innocent until proven guilty." I appreciate a skeptical mind, but you have to earn that privilege to some extent. I want to add that NONE of this is intended to dismiss your expertise in whatever you're an expert in. I'm sure I would make the choice to learn from you wherever your proficiencies lie, as opposed to question your credentials and expertise. And hey, if you come back at me with a highly educated background in law, hell yeah! Guess I got owned. If you're that qualified though, you could probably do so much more to this guy than just comment on a UA-cam video.
"...And it certainly doesn't mean that he did nothing wrong. It just means the jury didn't think that the prosecution proved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt." Wait, not only does he go against the basics of legal system "You are innocent until proven guilty" but also slipped that Prosecution didn't prove self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt? First, Kyle(?) did nothing wrong because innocent until proven guilty. Second, Prosecution didn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that Kyle murdered anyone. I for hope of god wish it was 100% slip up, else I'm start thinking he is no better than Blizzard. it is slippery slope. Trust is easy to lose but hard to build up. You can make 10 things right but one mistake can ruin all that hard work.
@@bigknormanator your first paragraph was helpful... But the second and third...? You jumped down someone's throat that was confused about the information they received and asked a question for clarification. That was unnecessary.
21:57 This is a terrible argument. You actually imply that a person who defended himself and is retreating away from people towards the police is free game for a lynch mob.
@@waspie1690 because as soon as he dropped the gun, he would no longer have presented a threat for them to react to. This is a good reason not to be armed. Plus, being armed, demonstrates to others that you're willing to kill. I am not. I don't need a weapon to defend myself when attacked. I prefer to have my hands open for defense. You can't apply a lock or hold with something in your hand.
@@timkramar9729 he didn’t put it down because it’s his gun, and was afraid people would go after him, because one person already did. He was scared, and you’re putting weird standards on this kid. You’re expecting this kid to just assume nobody will see him as a threat after shooting someone? That mob wouldn’t have cared
20:00 a skateboard, a kick while you are on the ground... can all be deadly. Also, if the force is enough to cause grave bodily harm then deadly force can be just the right amount of force.
Frankly if someone could potentially take your gun away from you that can be deadly. Getting knocked out or incapacitated or having someone grab ahold of your gun could lead to someone taking your gun from you and using it on you.
@@TheGreatTake you might if you were just in a mental hospital. "Not many people are crazy enough to pull the trigger, but Rittenhouse was." Why do you think that to be crazy? How about brave enough, to pull the trigger?
FYI: Rosenbaum's autopsy showed that he had an injury to his hand that was consistent with having his hand over the end of the barrel when a round was discharged...
An EXTREMELY important detail. Just like Rosenbaum had his hands up, but Kyle only fired AFTER he lowered his arm and pointed his gun at Kyle. Another important detail LE left out. Seems odd to leave out such critical details…almost as of a huge, UA-cam approved legal series would want to keep people confused about the clarity of a self defense trial… EDIT: Grosskreutz, not Rosenbaum. I’ve been duly corrected and rebuked already. Remember your criticism of me the next time you mix up your children’s names lol.
@@inglebear84 Rosenbaum was the first guy man, you've got the wrong guy 🤦♂️ Its odd it was left out for the first man who started all of this when he attacked kyle, but when you mix up the people like that, all it does is discredit that you know what you're talking about. Did you even watch the trial at all? How could you not know the name of the surviving person who testified? Edit: I think legal eagle made lies of omission here but that's exactly why I dont want people mixing up peoples names so we can have an actual credible argument here
This attorney "legal..." Whatever is biased AF. I pointed out his lies by omission. His excessive commentary on poc and fails to recognize bthe massive video coverage. I watched these videos the day they streamed in Twitter. I'm now watching people like this attorney twist the narrative. Smoothly injecting bias and lying by omission. It's gross.
@@blackcast2613 Yeah man he literally cut out the part where Kyle is HIT IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD with a fist or a weapon while running away then attacked by one of the actual "alleged" victims with the skateboard in the back BEFORE he falls. Legal eagle literally cuts out SUCH AN IMPORTANT PART & just cuts to kyle tripping. He only tripped because he was ATTACKED FROM BEHIND IN THE HEAD. A disgusting omission when that attack that led him to fall is truly what caused Hubers death. Huber hit him from behind as well so it's not like he didnt also cause his own death but still. Cant even claim he cut out people not involved in the case because he cut out an attack from Huber
20:30 "Those saying but for Rittenhouse these shootings wouldn't have happened, are right" That's not a given. Rosenbaum was belligerent, deranged, and possibly suicidal. If Rittenhouse hadn't been there, there is good reason to believe Rosenbaum would have targeted someone else. It's much truer to say "If Rosenbaum hadn't been there no one would have been killed." 21:28 "Maybe Kyle Rittenhouse retreated at every possible opportunity" There is no question that Rittenhouse retreated at every opportunity. I don't know why Legal Eagle waffled on this.
Because he's unfortunately biased and has to either appeal to his audience or his own beliefs. It is an interesting thought that if Rosenbaum never began pursuing Rittenhouse, or that he even backed off after his first chance, none of this would've happened. It was his killing that got everyone chasing Rittenhouse and which sparked the tension that lead to 3 other people attempting to attack him on the ground.
Well it's bias if the event is an protest and someone calls it a riot. And the reverse is true. If a riot is going on and someone calls it a protest they're clearly bias too.
No.. The people who say this was a protest are bias, the people who say this was a riot are objectively factual. One might even have called it an act of domestic terrorism since the goal here was to inflict harm and spread fear for the sake of political/ideological means..
Not really. Because a protest and riots were going on at the same time. I have no issue with protests, but am not a fan of riots, and given the extensive criminal history of everyone who attacked Kyle, it is hard to accept they were there to merely voice their displeasure via peaceful means.
This is the first time I actually am learning about this case because I've been avoiding it. I've seen people lose friendships over this stuff. I dont get it.
People who trust short, interspersed, and editorialized news clips think Kyle is Guilty. People who seeked out all the first-party video evidence from the first few days of the incident, who read the Wisconsin statutes on possession of a rifle by a person under age 18, who looked up the criminal history of the 4 men who attacked him, who looked at a map of Antioch's relation to Kenosha, who had their eyes glued to the livestream of his trial... Could not come to any other conclusion than "Not Guilty."
First of all: if you've been "avoiding this case", it's prudent to restrain the urge to express strong opinions about it. Which is exactly what many people don't care to do. They didn't follow what's been presented in court, or anything that surfaced before the trial (and I mean real evidence, like videos, not someone's views or opinions). They stick to a narrative that was served to them by the media, celebrities, political figures, etc. If you followed the case, you'd see: - prosecutorial misconduct (withholding important evidence, grave constitutional violations, witness intimidation, etc.); - death threats towards the defendant (Kyle Rittenhouse) and the judge; - extensive criminal records and history of violent behavior of all the deceased or wounded (pedophilia, domestic abuse, OWI, firearm offences); the person referred to as "jump kick man" is also a habitual offender (his real name is Maurice Freeland and was known to the prosecution, but they withheld this information as his testimony could greatly help the defense); - multiple threats (during the night of the event) towards KR and others by the deceased Joseph Rosenbaum (who also called people n-word - at a "racial justice protest") and other people involved, e.g. Joshua Ziminski (also a habitual offender; he was charged with arson by ADA Thomas Binger, giving him immunity from testifying in KR's case); - jury intimidation (a man identified as James Morrison working "under the supervision of" Irene Byon of NBC tried to take photos of jury members); and many other "interesting" things. It's terrifying to see how easily people get manipulated and how often they willfully spread misinformation. There are still some folks believing that KR is a white supremacist who deliberately targeted a peaceful (sic!) protest, shot and killed BLACK (sic!!!) people unprovoked. That's the stuff you can still find in mainstream media. And those who believe it aren't interested in learning anything from reliable sources like the videos from the trial (which were broadcasted live). I'm not surprised friendships were lost because of this case. I wouldn't hesitate to sever ties with anyone who believes a politically motivated narrative and, when confronted with basic undeniable facts, chooses to ignore them because they "don't fit" said narrative. That's how lynching happens and I don't want that kind of people on my contacts list.
This case was pretty much over when Grosskreautz said that Rittenhouse had lowered his rifle when he was approaching with his pistol drawn on Rittenhouse.
The case was over after the opening statements, when Richards said that Grosskreutz told the police he had lost his pistol before he reached Kyle, and that he was actually trying to save him. There was no way for him to square what he told the police and the video evidence, and he ended up getting caught in his own web.
Yeah. I find it weird that LegalEagle paints it like Grosskreautz may or may not have been pointing his pistol at Rittenhouse when he was shot. Grosskreautz flat out agreed while on the stand that he was pointing his gun at Rittenhouse when he was shot.
I think it's pretty obvious that the owners of the car lot were blatantly lying when they said they never asked Rittenhouse or anyone to protect their property. There's plenty of photos and footage of them hanging out with Rittenhouse and the other people that showed to protect their locations. And are we really to believe that Kyle and a bunch of other guys showed up and specifically went to Car Source properties 100% unprompted and unasked for? It's far more likely that the owners lied in court to try and protect themselves from any legal trouble for asking people with guns to protect their stuff during a riot.
Thanking them after the fact does not mean they asked them to be there. Unless you have videos, or other proof Car Source asked anyone to be there, we have to accept they didn't.
@@jfbeam There's enough evidence to suggest reasonable doubt in their testimony. Just like how they Faustian'd Dominic Black to testify against Kyle and didn't tell him that the Defense was looking for him.
The dealership people were pretty sketchy on the witness stand (you mean to tell me their inventory manager didn't really know their losses?), which made a lot of people question if they are trying to hide something to begin with. Other evidence and testimony, including testimony from a former employee, suggests they were invited or otherwise given approval.
@@jfbeam Again...are we really supposed to believe that a group of guys got together and SPECIFICALLY spread themselves out over each and every Car Source property, unprompted and uninvited?
By that same token someone could look at only a few of the most damning angles and say Kyle was also lying. You'd have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt they were lying - otherwise Kyle would be locked up without 'reasonable doubt' in play.
The prosecution was incompetent and I’m not sure how bicep could of claimed self defense when he chased after the guy trying to retreat. You know, in another world.
The problem is that the situation is much clearer to us in hindsight than it was to anyone on the ground that day. If Kyle hadn't previously fired any shots that night, Gaige (bicep) for sure couldn't have claimed self-defense. But Kyle HAD fired other shots that night and had even killed someone. We know that Kyle shot because he believed his life was in imminent danger, and it probably was. However, Gaige didn't have any of that information available to him. He could absolutely argue that he thought that night that Kyle Rittenhouse was a mass shooter out to kill as many people as he could kill. Technically, the actual legal argument he probably would have been making would have been more of a defense of others argument, but that can quickly tie to a self-defense argument. He would have said that the reason he was chasing after Rittenhouse was to try to stop him from killing anyone else, and after he tried to stop him Kyle pointed the gun at him, so he felt he had no choice but to shoot in self-defense. Personally, after listening to Gaige testify I wouldn't buy that story on a PERSONAL level; however, if I was on the jury I don't think I could say that I disbelieved the story BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. While I don't personally believe the story, it certainly would be a reasonable interpretation of events that someone could believe on the night in question. As I have said elsewhere, if it comes to personal belief and trust if I went out shooting and Kyle asked to come along and asked to shoot my gun I would have zero problem with that. Based on my personal beliefs about him after watching the trial I believe he is extremely trustworthy and responsible. If Gaige asked to come along I for sure would say absolutely not. Not only would I not let him shoot my gun, I would definitely not want to be anywhere near him. I wouldn't trust him to shoot his own gun responsibly, and I wouldn't even trust him to be around me when I have my gun even if he agreed not to touch my gun and not to do anything irresponsible around me when I was shooting my gun. But self-defense laws by design are meant to lean in favor of a reasonable person doing what they think they need to do in a situation, and even though I don't believe it for a second personally I don't know that legally I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Gaige didn't reasonably believe he was subduing a mass shooter that was a risk to Gaige and other bystanders that night.
No just because you fired a shot in self defense once. Doesn’t mean it give someone else the justification to attack “in self defense” while Kyle is running away.
@@zachtalkssmack4470 If you can tell that Kyle is merely running away and especially if you know he shot in self defense that doesn’t give you the right to shoot him, but we can’t accurately attribute omniscience to people in an unfolding situation. If a person on the night hears the shot and genuinely believes Kyle is a mass murderer bent on killing a bunch of people, shooting him could be seen as an attempt to defend other potential victims. And when Kyle points his gun at you it could become an issue of self defense. With the clarity we have in hindsight it is obvious that isn’t what is happening, but you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the people on the ground couldn’t reasonably have believed that was what was happening in the chaos of the moment with limited views. My gut says it is likely that the other people knew Kyle had shot in self defense and that he was running away, but at the same time I do believe it is possible for a reasonable person on that night in the chaos to have possibly interpreted things that way. I’d need more evidence for me to say they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the other men couldn’t have reasonably concluded that that was what was going on. And there are plenty of other cases where a law-abiding citizen heroically took out a mass shooter with their fire arm, so I definitely don’t want a world where law-abiding citizens aren’t allowed to use their legal firearms to take out mass shooters in an active shooting situation.
That's not a universal rule, though. If you're in an open area and there's an aggressor with a gun, allowing them to create space is the last thing you want (assuming you don't have a gun). If you're 5 feet away from a gunman, you have a chance of defending yourself. If the gunman gets 50 feet away from you, you have no way of defending yourself. I'm not saying that that was the situation here, given there was a second firearm in play, but in general someone with a gun retreating does not necessarily mean that they're trying to deescalate or escape from the situation.
@@IvanGonzalez-eo5kj The lawyer may have an expert opinion but the youtube commenter insists on an opinion that fits my narrative. Clearly the lawyer must be a "political activist" because above all else, I have to be right
@@Damitsall the reason I asked is because I’ve already heard what all the other lawyers have had to say about this topic. I like to listen to everybody on all sides and then form my own opinions on the matter.
@@mysteryjunkie9808 He was very much there to start trouble. A minor going to a protest they know nothing about, in a different state, with a firearm- is reckless and negligent. He’s a moron.
@@purplefreedom1631 When I'm having a bad day, I just watch Gross being murdered during cross examination. So many moments! Did you have a license? Yes. Expired? .... Yes... Did he only shot after you pointed the gun at him? Yes Are you planning to make lots of money with the results of this trial suing Kanosha? Yes Were you running towards Kyle to provide medical aid? Of course. Why are you withdrawing your illegal firearm in the next frame? Yes
Yes, IF Rittenhouse chased gage with a group of friends after threatening to kill Gage, we would have to consider a self defense claim for Gage. Since Rittenhouse didn't do that and was instead trying to flee, we don't have to pretend Gage has a case there.
He's a lawyer, you missed the point were he said that even if you provoked an attack and the victim takes out a gun you now as well have the right for self defense.
@@mattv2956 Except you and the civil litigation attorney who has absolutely no experience in criminal law failed to recognize that provocation and literal attempted murder are two separate things. If Grosskreutz really believed he was in danger he wouldn't have chased Kyle Rittenhouse down while armed with a gun he was illegally carrying because he was on probation. Not to mention he was rioting and looting too. Keep that in mind in case you somehow think he had the right to be there that night.
@@lyongreene8241 yet again you missed the point even if they were commenting a crime they are still entitled to self defense and have you not read anything related to the situation or did the news spoon feed you information, we he was not looting nor rioting he was there as a medic and he was legally there with a gun. Now he is in a lawsuit against Kenosha due to their officers supporting an illegally armed milita. Not to mention the Kenosha police failed to enforce the curfew on all civilians not just protesters.
@@mattv2956 Committing a crime in this context precludes attempted murder since the case he brought up involved a man robbing a store. There is no precedence ensuring a murderer or someone attempting murder has a right to self-defense. By that logic, every instance of murder is justified so long as the victim acts in the interest of self-preservation. Watch the video again. The idea that Rittenhouse was carrying the gun illegally was already debunked by your favorite lawyer halfway through this video, so don't come at me with that bs.
@@lyongreene8241 did I ever say he was illegally carrying a gun. All I said was him and the other goons were considered an armed illegal milita and the police did nothing
@@everythingdibs344 Still amazes me that anyone is trying to blame video games for real world acts. Thought that would have ended after the moral panic of the 90s/00s.
You said that the guy that was shot in the bicep had his hands up, when the video evidence and even his own testimony show he was pointing his own gun at Kyle before he was shot
He did put his hands up initially. That's why initially Kyle did not shoot him. He then advanced back in on Kyle later and pointed his loaded gun at Kyle's head and was shot only then. Technically it's not wrong, but it is misleading.
Considering his own biases, he did a pretty good job on this one. Omitting one, granted vital, fact is pretty minor all things considered. The thing that is really annoying to me is his continued reference to "duty to retreat" which 1: doesn't even exist there and 2: video evidence clearly shows him attempting to retreat anyway.
-- Ya, in the first few seconds I mispronounced Jacob Blake's name. FML. I'll try to fix.
-- I didn't mean to suggest that the gun crossed state lines. My point was actually the opposite: people were making a big deal about Rittenhouse or his gun "crossing state lines" when it probably didn't matter to the provocation analysis. Even if that had been the case, it probably wasn't a crime or tort that could have served as the predicate for provocation.
-- "Being attacked" does not automatically mean you can use deadly force in self-defense. Your force must be proportionate and reasonable; you cannot use deadly force "unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself."
-- By that same token, unarmed people can generate such a fear; being unarmed doesn't necessarily mean no one can ever use deadly force against you (sorry for the double negatives!).
*grabs popcorn*
@@walkingonmygrave welcome to the new castle doctrine, where someone can go to a school with a gun, and kill people if they try to detain him, for carrying a murder tool in a place of learning.
@@walkingonmygrave Not only that, the fact that you can use self-defense after provoking the situation is nuts. It can lead to planned murders. And let's not start talking about vigilantism. This case can set a really dangerous precedent.
The 2nd and 3rd who got shot thought Kyle was an active shooter, they were using their right to self defence to stop him but that doesn't matter. Their lives don't matter even though Kyle fled the scene all because "sEcOnD aMmEnDmEnT".
The US is messed up, and all the people from the UK I've spoken with agree from what I've heard that Kyle murdered at least the second man.
@@walkingonmygrave can't do fed gun trafficking due to the gun never actually crossing state lines. Also the school zone thing is a stretch, but may be plausible. I doubt the DA would go for it.
I still can’t believe one of the first questions the prosecution asked Kyle is why he invoked his fifth amendment right to silence after being arrested
Doesn't your 5th amendment go out the window once you decide to take the stand?
@@MrBigTrey Yes. But he asked why he remained silent prior to the trial
@@MrBigTrey Yes, you can be questioned if you take the stand and (since you're under oath) have to answer the questions. But Binger tried to utilize Rittenhouse's post-arrest silence on the issue (IE not making a statement to the cops/a few sentences he said to the media when he wasn't in jail) as justification for a certain line of questioning. No one has to make statements after they've been arrested which is why the judge shit a brick when he tried to go down that line of questioning. Lawyers can't even mention post-arrest silence since it's such a big deal. TLDR: Totally good to question someone on the stand, super bad to question someone as to why they didn't talk about something when not under oath/in public.
@@chadcastillo2008 the worst part was they tried to make it seem like him using his rights (that the cops read to you) was a bad thing. It was an awful job of trying the case in every respect.
@@chadcastillo2008 I don't know how this works in the US, but in many British common law countries, the police caution often includes a remark that while you have the right to remain silent, if you fail to mention something when questioned that you later rely on in court, this could harm your defence.
The prosecutor really went with the “video games cause violence” angle smh.
If there's anything to be won here it's video game rights
That's ridiculous, if anything caused him to become violent, it was right wing politics.
@@3asianassassin I would say that the people trying to kill him caused the violence
@@3asianassassin except rittenhouse is a registered democrat and a blm supporter. What a failed comment.
@@uria702 Well he hung out with white supremacists beforehand and did the ok sign. That's no proof of anything, but it definitely does infer at the very least a connection to far right politics
I swear to god, I am not a legal professional yet and every time the prosecution spoke I found so many mistakes, leading questions and some of the worst points made in history my god as someone else said in the comments "The prosecution was the best defense lawyer Rittenhouse ever had" never heard a truer statement
I'd say the judge was.
They made bad arguments because there was no good argument. This should never have been tried
The prosecutor (and defence) is allowed to ask leading questions when they are cross-examining their opposition's witness, or a hostile witness.
@@thomasbecker9676 lmao then why didn't he dismiss the case after Binger commented on Kyle's 5th amendment right twice.
@@Halmir4126 Because depending on how the mistrial is declared, the prosecution can revisit it, and that (obviously) biased judge would probably not then preside over it. A mistrial doesn't necessarily mean the accused gets away with it.
Imagine how much worse this whole situation would have been if the video didn’t exist …
Rittenhouse would likely be in jail. We all know his situation was rigged against him. This shouldn't have even gone to court.
Oh he would definitely be in jail.
He would have been railroaded into prison.
He would have stood almost no chance in trial. There would have been way too many people testifying against rittenhouse.
The funniest part of that to me is that some of the footage came from Federal government drones. Meaning the Feds make a habit of monitoring these riots. It's almost like they know they are going to be violent.
I do hope there's a follow-up video to this one talking about the conduct _durring_ the trial. Specifically how the Prosecution seemed to be intentionally breaking rules and dropped the ball every chance they could. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if this case is studied in law school as a prime example of what NOT to do as the Prosecution.
EDIT: People seem to think I am taking a side with this comment. That's not the intention. If LE did do a follow-up video, I'd like to see him address the conduct of all relevant parties; Prosecution, Defence, Judge, Media, etc. I simply used the Prosecution as the main example because it's what stuck out the most to me, a layman who has seen a limited amount of the trial itself.
He may well have done that on videos on Nebula, but you would have to pay for that exclusive content.
Prosecutors do seem to have a way of making a lot more mistakes when going after white supremacists don't they?
@@o76923 Jesus you realize that was all media lies right? I can't wait for the defamation lawsuits.
@@o76923 honest to god the prosecution would never deliberately lose a case because losing as prosecution is terrible for your career on such a high profile case.
@@o76923 He was not a white supremacist.
I truly believe the prosecution lost the case when it was said a person does not have the right to use a gun in self defense.
Ya know when steven crowder said "I'd rather see headlines like potential rapist shot in ditch rather than rapist violates woman?" Yeah that. One of those guys shot was a sex offender.
@@wastelandlegocheem A kiddie diddler at that! If you'd seen the live news broadcast that day (which I did in Canada.) you'd see the diddler picking a fight with Kyle on more than one occasion. Guess he didn't like a kid having power over him!?
@@wastelandlegocheem yeah but Rittenhouse (nor anyone) knew that when he shot them so it’s honestly irrelevant
@@MyToastyToast legally true, morally faulty
@@jomaxgamez3840 its not morally faulty because Rittenhouse didn't know the man he was going to kill had an awful past. What could be considered morally faulty is this argument is only used as a diversion from the astounding amount of evidence and circumstances that night that point towards Kyle Rittenhouse going there having the intent to kill people with opposing socio-political ideologies
You should have mentioned how the prosecutor tried to use Kyle's silence against him
That's goes against his politics, he never will.
This is a grey area at best. Kyle refused to be read Miranda and then asked for a lawyer...then after all that proceeded to speak volumes to the police before his lawyer arrived. Is it really pleading the 5th when you proceed to word vomit all over the police anyway? I would argue that Kyle never intended to plead the fifth at all. He was simply saying he wanted to speak with a lawyer after giving his statement. Kyle, despite all of his "police training" nonsense failed to comprehend Miranda at its most basic.
@@Kevin_2435 to be fair, asking for a lawyer is invoking your Miranda rights. Silence or asking for counsel counts as that. Now talking after is kinda dumb but also a grey area because police in some cases are required to give you a warning that you are waiving Miranda rights by agreeing to explain what happened and what not.
@@Kevin_2435 how do you refuse to be read Miranda? I though that was the Police's duty, like a lawful requirement.
@@BetaNurse68 They tried to warn him and he told them off saying "I want to talk, I want to talk." He never expressly waived his Miranda rights. I think the two things should be completely separate.
I beg to differ about the "non-deadly" force used by Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz, especially Huber because hit by a skateboard to the head can be deadly. There are cases where people were killed and permanently disabled because they were hit by a skateboard.
What's more important is that you don't wait for deadly force to be used against you because then you can't defend yourself. It's the threat of it being used against you, which is what was implied by Rosenbaum charging him when he was open carrying, Huber grabbing his gun, and Grosskreutz pointing his pistol at him.
But chose to drive down there knowing it was dangerous and chaotic. idc what the law says legality does not mean morality. Also tons of his statements afterwards, and things he has said has just shown he's an all around awful person and racist. No minority would have ever gotten away with this. He used his white privilege and was treating this scenario like he was in a movie.
Tell me how one human being thinks he could stop all of the rioting going on by just bringing a gun and charging in with a firearm? In what world is that going to help anything? its psychotic white person main character syndrome at its finest. If all of the police, swat, and fbi couldn't stop this (which he supports heavily) how would he be able to on his own?
He quite literally appointed himself judge jury and executioner, and became apart of the damage and chaos he was trying to stop and in no way did a single thing to make the situation better. How does shooting someone in the back running away stop all of the riots going on in the world?
They also actually did tell Kyle to come and defend the area (was later revealed that the owner of the place lied) as well meaning he came with intention to use deadly force before even seeing the situation. an uneducated 17 year old is not your security or personal armed guard. That is shit Americans give other countries for doing.
He didnt' stop the riots he just made everyone panic even more and caused even more rioting and violence.
He's trying to be super charitable, because if you go through it, what LegalEagle tries to say often could not be used in defense of Rosenbaum or Grosskreutz. huber on the other hand MAYBE even if he attacked with a weapon, he could have been argued doing it in immediate self defense of others. Rosenbaum nor Grosskreutz had that.
@@dragames The issue for Huber and the other looters is that Rittenhouse was in full retreat and was no longer a threat.
@@NIKOLAP7 that's my point..
If I ever get charged with a crime, I really hope Binger is the prosecutor.
You shouldn't, he's actually pretty good, and he's kind of slimy
@@rebeccatrishel Apparently not. This was pretty open and shut to me and still didn't go through. If you were to try the same thing at a white supremacist rally in Kenosha you should get away with it.
@@UndyingNero The fact that you're clueless about the law hardly make Binger a bad lawyer. But at least you're willing to admit that the Kenosha rioters were, in fact, just the Left's version of white supremacists.
In his defense, this was a case he could never win.
There where so many angles of video. And when all witnesses confirm selfdefense, it's impossible.
His only possible way was media and political pressure.
Wich is what happend. We watched media lie, still are lying somehow..
We watched politician give their piece of mind and in some cases threats to the jury and judge.
We even watched the president put pressure on this.
Too bad that in the next 10 years binger wont be a prosecutor....he'll be a judge.
14:05 I'd say it's a pretty important fact that Gaige was not shot until he pointed his firearm at Rittenhouse, per his own testimony.
Yeah, he lost me when he said Gaige would’ve gotten the same verdict if he had shot and killed Kyle.
Prosecutor's face was priceless
@@AFR0MAMBA pretty sure gaige testified that he thought he saw kyle pull back the charging handle(I know kyle didn't, be he did hit the forward assist) its reasonable for gaige to assume kyle was going to shoot him. It's possible Gaige could have gotten the same verdict if he had shot kyle.
Yeah
Gaige would have gotten the same verdict for sure. I don’t know why he approached him. I would have killed KR at 25 yards if I thought he was a mass shooter.
I was recently on jury duty, something I hope to never have to do again, and at the end walked away thinking that both the defense AND the prosecution had done bad jobs. This was something the whole jury admitted to feeling while in deliberation.
My only advice... try to avoid any situation where you might have to be on trial because you never know if a bad lawyer will get you sent to prison because of something you did not do.
I mean if I didn't do anything I'm going to trial. There's always appeals
Jury Nullification.
@@MichaelNunya The Justice System hates this one weird trick!
The entire jury system is flawed.
"Let's take 6 to 12 people who know nothing about the law and have them decide someone else's legal fate!"
My last jury duty was so annoying. The defense lawyer kept putting words in his client and witness' mouths the entire time. We even made fun of him in the jury room while we were having lunch.
Interestingly, the video DOES show Rittenhouse retreating at each instance, until no longer possible.
Exactly, he also doesn't shoot when the person that's about to attack him backs away
You mean to tell me Grosskruetz was chasing Kyle? He swore during his testimony he was merely running in Kyle's direction because Kyle was running away. He was not chasing.
@@zedalba Aaaand the video refuted that.
@@Seravat7no it didn’t, how can you differentiate running in a direction and chasing from that video
@@typhlosionproductions5970 Because he had a pistol in his hand and also lunged at Kyle after faking a surrender? Jesus, you're dumb.
The best quote I heard about this case: "I'm no lawyer, and the Kenosha DA shouldn't be one, either"
I love this!
we can throw the judge in that bin too... another guy who refused to perform his job with integrity.
@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394 Another clown that didn't watch the actual trial.
@@johnbull1568 The judge? Agreed 👍
@@johnbull1568 lulz, no, you just missed what you wanted to miss
UA-cam: removes dislike button
Legal Eagle: Looks like I can inform people about controversial cases, now.
I said this exact same thing! Haha. I can't believe I used to subscribe to this clown.
I love how you call him a clown when you yourself don't' even know how videos are made and when they get posted, that's absolutely ironic. The only clown here is you
@@midgetwars1 I hurt somebody's feewings
@@FluffyBunny9002 OHHH NO HE LOST FLUFFY BUNNY AS A SUBSCRIBER. Bro grow up nobody cares
The dislike button is still there though.
The name of the person shot was Jacob Blake, not Jacob Black, for reference. It's a nitpick, but for people looking up the context to the unrest in Kenosha this could be useful.
It’s funny how this over shadowed the reason this even took place.
@@spinningbackkick6021 I only watched the first few seconds of the video when I made that comment. Just something I noticed quickly and wanted to point out.
@@spinningbackkick6021 because it's not relevant to this case or the law applied in this case.
On an unrelated side note Jacob Black is the werewolf from Twilight.
Did you know that he was attempting to hijack a car of someone who he had previously raped a couple months earlier. After being tased twice, he was attempting to leave the scene with the hijacked car when the woman said "He's got my kid. He's got my keys". A car which he had put a knife in. It doesn't seem to me like the police had that much of a choice.
One element you neglected to mention was that the owner's testimony was contradicted by an employee who took the stand. His testimony, along with Black and Rittenhouse, states they asked for help. I have a feeling they committed perjury due to the potential financial risk of associating with Rittenhouse.
Regardless, you shouldn't be using a kid with no qualifications as armed security. Hire an actual professional with experience and relevant qualifications, especially if you have, as in this case, a reason to believe that there is an unusually high chance of a serious incident. So, regardless of whether or not he acted in self defense, he should not have been there in the first place, much less armed.
@@alexanderflack566 Let's broaden this net. NO ONE, not a single person, should have been there. There shouldn't have been a threat period. I agree, under normal circumstances I would hire professional security but it seems like that was a feasible option, especially considering the community is rather small. All in all had everyone not decided to torch a town over a justified police shooting, a child molester and domestic abuser would still be alive today.
@@alexanderflack566 there shouldn’t have been people burning buildings there. So the three people that got shot shouldn’t have been there either. In fact, they had a lesser moral position to be there than Rittenhouse, considering that Rittenhouse wasn’t an aggressor but a third party volunteering to provide aid.
I agree with you.
But I also think that about a lot of the protestors. I don't care what the cause is, we don't need the kind of guys who engaged that kid.
@@alexanderflack566 The 1st amendment protects Rittenhouse's right to be there. Whether he should or should not have been there is a moral question, not a legal one and thus has no place in this argument.
Btw none of those vandals should've have been there either, wouldnt you agree? They also shouldn't have attacked Rittenhouse, wouldn't you agree? Lots of should've would've here.
In one of the Southern States there was a black man whose house was raided by a swat team that did not properly identify themselves he defended his home from who he thought were intruders. He was found not guilty on all counts. Because he believed with an unreasonable doubt that this armed team was there to kill him and his family.
Link? I want a feel good story today.
@@remlapwastaken8857 I heard about it from Tim Pool. Just look up guy in Texas or Georgia (not totally sure which) takes out swat team maybe?
Ok? How does this apply to Rittenhouse?
@@andersonwallace4365 how does the "but if he was black" argument apply to Rittenhouse?
@@lava3218 tell me please.
12:44 who were clearly lying and even the prosecution admitted they were lying......
Legal eagle likes to leave inconvenient truths out.
@@Phillylove100 a dishonest lawyer? Never
People keep complaining about the judge being biased, but according to reports from other lawyers that work in that district, he's that way all the time, not just in the Rittenhouse case. Personally, I'd prefer to live in a country where the judges put the burden more on the prosecution and less on the defense. I judge that is biased towards the prosecution is terrifying.
Yeah the prosecution is the state, and the state has near infinite resources for putting forth a case, giving them even more power by siding with them during a case is not cool.
@Cool Cat because the jury had the final say? Shittenhouse shouldn't have been there. And he wouldn't have been there if people didn't think rioting solved social injustices. All of those protests achieved what? Two dead and another shot? Millions in property damage and lost goods?
hes bias cuz of the ruling you cant call the victims victims but rioter or looter is acceptable to pollute the jury the way he wanted to
@Cool Cat it’s more of a standard than a bias I’d say. There are a lot of predatory practices in manipulating defendants to confess to crimes they didn’t commit or to unknowingly incriminate themselves.
@@fkujakedmyname he had a similar standard for those words as well, don't call them something you can't substantiate. And the point of the trial was to substantiate whether or not Rosenbaum and Huber were victims. The closing arguments were allowed to use the language they'd like
Well I do have one thing to ask as you said in this video that you classified being hit with a skateboard as nonlethal; whereas it and the flat bar alongside the exposed nut are HEAVILY known for skull fractures and heavy hand/arm injuries while trying to defend from it because it becomes a gigantic lever multiplying force and a deadly weapon. Would that not be the rough equivalent as being attack with a tire iron or similar object?
And for everyone blabbing on about the first guy being unarmed and having only thrown a garbage bag; do you think after hearing that gunshot while running away that Kyle would stop and have to check that the guy chasing him wasn’t the one who shot while being chased by numerous other people while one of those people was actually armed?
A skate board is a deadly weapon, so is a wooden baseball bat. People are just trying to justify the actions of child predators and criminals. Oxymoron I know
You can get up and walk away with a concussion.
@@timkramar9729 ya you can, but not when there’s a mob of people that would stop you to death and steal your rifle. Go back to your mothers basement now
@N Fels I had a concussion when I was five. Hit by a car. Still alive.
Also, no one was looking to do anything but disarm him.
I use to work with a guy who, during the Boston Marathon bombing, said he wished he would have been there because he would have shot the guy. I was never able to convince him that randomly shooting when you have no idea what is going on is an awful thing to do. It creates more panic, puts more lives in danger and makes the police's job a lot harder because all of a sudden, they don't know who is on what side, they just have groups of people firing at random at people they think are the perpetrator. Its a recipe for disaster.
He has no business carrying a weapon in the first place with that sort of unsafe mindset, let alone in a crisis situation.
I'm guessing people all over the world have the "hero" complex, thinking force is the way to solve stuff. Only thing is, most other places of the world know not to make it easy for the heroes to be to get a gun. Still don't understand north american mentality, tbh. I feel like when you have had a "right" for a long time, getting it removed feels like an assault, even if said "right" actually harms you.
I was living in Boston when the bombing happened the fall out was chaotic enough if your friend did this he'd probably be in jail because he'd have most likely shot an innocent we didn't know who the perps were until they themselves brought attention to themselves by getting in a firefight with the cops.
“The guy” is working in the Wisconsin legislature now, apparently. The instructions are basically “shooting people is bay, yo, so we want to encourage it with this insane law.”
@@ismaelibanez9545 So in the frontier cultures of north America the natives and the wildlife were very dangerous and would require the need of protection by your own means, practically this was necessary and would follow into the revolution. The intention of the second amendment is pretty obvious that it was both a stake of decentralization in the polity sense but further is a populist sentiment on the liberal ideal. The right to bear arm's is basically a clause made by people who're essentially aware of history and aware that any state no matter how nobly concieved must have the necessity to take matters into their own hands. We would warn against this generally, and most who adhere to the right generally do but it was primarily something so when the state fails as it often tends to do that the people would have a right to practically act in their own best interest.
Please include the sound in videos. Kyle running away yelling “friendly friendly friendly, then Rosenbaum yelling “you won’t do shit” and “F**** you” as gunfire is going off and he lunges at Kyle. Then the crowd that knows he is running to police literally visible down the street decide to take law into own hands and chase him yelling “GET Him, CRANIUM HIM!” I can see not including Kyle’s testimony, but it wasn’t his lone testimony that corroborate Rosenbaums overtly aggressive behavior. There is multiple other witnesses describing him saying he would kill and rip hearts out. There is footage of him that night setting fires and screaming “N*******s” in the faces of the people standing there. How can you omit that crucial information? Threats matter especially when they appear to be acted out.
Because this is a youtube video, not a courtroom itself. And I'm pretty sure LE would rather not get demonitized or have any other disciplinary actions taken by UA-cam
@@fangsabre Then don't talk about the case. No point in discussing it if its going to be one sided and leave out very crucial details that apply to it.
@@fangsabre ...and you accused me of deflection!?! When facts are presented it seems you are the one who deflects or makes excuses. Are sure you are not studying law at the same college as Binger went to?
this is pathetic how triggered everyone gets. ffs how old is this case and you're either kissing kyles ass or the deadmans asses.
@@scrateswpo1659 I'd say it's a decent enough topic of discussion if we can avoid getting heated about it. Learning from the past helps us craft a better future.
Anyone who is truly surprised by the verdict didn't watch the trial.
Yeah, it was clear from the start the judge had no intention of letting the prosecution do their job.
@@KageSama19 Yeah, it was the judge's fault that the prosecution was a clownshow.
@@KageSama19 lol. oh yeah...that was it. smh.
@@abraxas4261 Shouldn't have even gone to trial.
@@Ka_Gg are you suggesting he should have been killed by the mob or the police?
Nah, grosskreuts approached an armed fleeing individual, not running from an armed pursuer. That's why it wouldn't be interpreted as self defense. The reason he ended up getting shot was when he lunged towards Rittenhouse while lowering his firearm towards Rittenhouse. The amount of hesitation displayed by Rittenhouse is arguably extraordinary. He gave the first man a chance to run when he turned around and the man stopped and only fired when that same person closed the distance anyway. The second person lunged at Rittenhouse and attempted to kick him, this was after following Rittenhouse and then pursuing him after he fell over. The third man attempted to use a blunt force weapon in the form of a skateboard and didn't get shot until he landed his hit on Rittenhouse's head. Finally, Grosskreuts who similarly pursued an armed individual, proceeded to approach him with a weapon drawn and then lunged towards him after being given the opportunity to back away. For all of the surprisingly unbiased takes you gave on this matter, acting like it's remotely possible given the evidence that a jury would come to the conclusion that the attackers (legally correct now) were ever justified to "defend themselves". In each of their cases, it's like the opposite of Duty to retreat, where apparently you think they had a duty to pursue. Just as I thought you had an inkling of hope of being remotely watchable. How unfortunate that you're part of our justice system.
Well said
Objection - misstating the record.
I think it's important to note that although the owners of car source (the Khindri brothers) did indeed testify in court that they didn't ask Kyle or anyone else to protect their business, there was conflicting testimony in court by Rittenhouse, Black and Smith.
Additionally, at least according to the defense, there is apparently at least some indication in the police's report from when the interviewed the Khindri's that they believed the Khindri's were lying about not asking Kyle or anyone else to protect the business, possibly because they were concerned about possible civil liability.
And finally, we know for certain that at least 1 of the Khindri brothers perjured himself on the stand, when he testified that he "had never met, talked to or even heard of Kyle Rittenhouse", however, there is photo evidence of Kyle, Dominick Black and Nick Smith (in addition to several other "militia members") talking, hanging out and taking photos together at the dealership on the day of the shooting.
There is also video of the owners hanging out with Kyle and friends before dark at the car lot.
Their credibilty as witnesses was extremely dubious
I can see why that wasn't included though, it's not relevant to whether or not Rittenhouse acted in self-defense
That's not even bringing into the fact that the prosecutor stated he thought the brothers were lying and he was basically suborning perjury.
Ooh, now THAT is something I want to hear more about.
I find it very difficult to believe someone chasing a person with a firearm is acting rationally and not attempting to use violence.
This 100%. Even a small child would know that. But maybe people get less reasonable when they get older ?
And obviously the jury found that hard to believe as well. Per the verdict. This lawyer is a loon.
@@ivankrushensky hes just a left-wing activist
Could be trying to remove violence. If someone had an open gun in my neighborhood and was acting dangerously I might.
@@kdsquire99 maybe you missed it, but Rittenhouse was not "acting dangerously". He didn't attack or provoke anyone. Quite the opposite actually, he was ambushed as he was using a fire extinguisher. So if you saw a parking lot full of cars lit on fire and you saw a man using a fire extinguisher to put them out, and he also so happened to have AR-15 strapped to his chest, you think you would attack him? For what reason?
At 14:02, you forgot to mention that he testified that Rittenhouse didn't shoot at him until he lowered his hands and pointed the gun at Rittenhouse the second time
It's called lying by omission. But since he's a woke leftist, it's all good.
@@DK-ed7be dude, come on. Cut the guy some slack, no matter what he does or doesn’t say people are gonna berate him. While I’m sure his political views affect his view, maybe give him the benefit of the doubt.
-this coming from a conservative
@@gabeewing765 He lied. Why should anybody cut a liar slack?
@@DK-ed7be Let alone an alleged legal expert, with a very widely known part of the trial.
That’s because legal eagle is biased. He says so many dumb things here. Hell, so many wrong things, like Gaige would be defending himself if he shot Kyle, which is just not true given that Kyle was running to police.
Like your videos, but I disagree with your assessment that Grosskreutz could have used the self defense argument.
He is on video chasing down Rittenhouse.
Not sure he could argue he feared for his life
agreed
good point! I was thinking maybe Legal Eagle made a good point, but what you said is true too. I really didn't like that Grosskreutz guy. Seems like a real tool. And to fake-surrender so you can try to kill someone, just leaves a bad taste.
@N Fels He didn't. Running away proves.
@Neil you can't attack someone and then claim self defense
@N Fels Walking around an active riot without being part of the many regulated, citizen's militias willing to make a blind eye to the fact he was under 18.
A vigilante with a gun is a vigilante with a gun, he's asking for it (unless he was part of the, I repeat, many citizen's militias in place that night, he could've tried to put that fire down while being covered by a militiamen squad, you know, Escalation and engagement? CONservatives talk a lot of macho crap about war and weapons, but seems that they're tactically Rworded, Meal Team Six is real).
He wanted to play Johny Hero Vigilante in a situation where he knew he could get away with murdering a leftist/brown person, because he's been indoctrinated to be a Brown Shirt, virtually since birth, just like the vast majority of American kids growing and conforming to a CONservative.
There's nuance to self defense, unless you want to work under the "look at what you made me do" logic, which is consistent on how CONservatives are abusive by nature.
One of the problems of gaige being able to claim self defense is he was chasing a retreating ‘threat’ this makes him the provoker now. He never retreated. As soon as Kyle took his gun off gaige, gaige point his gun at Kyle. (Admited in his own testimony) at that point Kyle shot him.
why didnt he "retreat" directly to the police line when he was first being chased?
@@Ellwood76 that's where he WAS going
@@Ellwood76 not a question that has legal bearing.
@@Ellwood76 he did he was going there the whole time
Why do you comment on stuff without even checking the facts first
@@Ellwood76 he was lol, this is such an easy case and really shows how disingenuous some people are
You left out the fact that Anthony Huber grabbed the barrel of his gun and tried to yank it away from him after hitting him with a skateboard while he was on the ground.
'you left out the fact', yeah, that's why they're called leftists.
You wouldn't try to take their gun away if you believed they were an active shooter? The active shooter policy at my uni was to charge down the shooter if he entered a classroom. They're effectively enacting a typical active shooter policy.
@@Rwdphotos grabbing a firearm by the barrel and pointing it at your chest is a good way to get ventilated. Even giving Huber the benefit of the doubt that he believed he was attempting to disarm an active shooter, he bypassed the first two policies when dealing with an active shooter as outlined by the Department of Homeland Defense. First is evacuating the area, second is of you can't evacuate then hide and third as a last resort attempt to disarm the shooter. Your school didn't tell you to hunt and rush a shooter in the hallway but to do so if they entered the same classroom as you. One of the biggest issues with self defense laws is that they can become murky. Huber could have acted with every good intention but that doesn't invalidate Kyle's right to self defense. There is even a possibility that if Huber would have came out on top that he could have been sued because he would have had to prove that he believed his life was in immediate threat. That is kind of hard to prove when he had to chase the threat down.
@@Rwdphotos That’s the problem Kyle wasn’t an active shooter are you suggesting that he get punished because someone thought he was something that he wasn’t?
@@johnny.V03 it doesn't really matter if he was or wasn't; he was shooting at people, so people thought he was a shooter. If a cop got a report that there was a shooter in an area, and he comes across a guy shooting a gun at people, he's most likely going to drop the guy
I appreciate this video. But I would have liked to see more analysis of the trial itself and some of the major mistakes the lawyers made on both sides. A lot of people are saying the prosecution did a terrible job and I’d like to see what you think about that.
He did, check it out! In his video about the controversy around the judge, he goes over the many mistakes that the prosecution makes. It did seem to be lacking on the defense's mistakes though
@@thathumburgerismineasshole5739 thanks. Not so sure defense mistakes are a relevant now though lol
He obviously didn’t watch the trial. So that’s a big ask.
Although, I suppose it’s possible he did watch the trial. Which makes this “analysis” even more egregious.
Thats a completely different conversation and goes outside of basic objective facts.
@@rickjablonski9669 In which state did you take the bar?
I think Rittenhouse's unequivocal attempts to retreat in combination with Grosskreutz's testimony will make it impossible for a reasonable person to conclude that he did not act in self-defense.
I think that the person who was shot admitted he aimed the gun first at Rittenhouse. Open ur fking eyes and see the truth brainwashed man
There are a lot of unreasonable people out there.
Yeah he was running for it
Literally no way a reasonable person sees this as anything other than self defense. Anybody claiming other wise is just showing you to stay away from them
So that’s how you spell his name lol
9:56 this has been used since ancient times. I remember reading upon a late medieval account of someone being sentenced to death for murder, because he got beaten in a tavern, he was unarmed at that point, he left the tavern, went to a friend, asked him to give him his dagger he gave him for safekeeping, returned to the tavern and stabbed his assaulter to death. The argument was that if he had his dagger on his person from the beginning, it would have been self-defense and he would have been acquitted. But by leaving the tavern to retrieve a dagger and then returning, he became a murderer.
Sounds about right. That was my thought the whole way and a lawyer not bringing that up seemed oddly suspicious to me, like he was just looking for the idea 'well the guy who got charged for murder had brought the gun in'.
That's revenge and premeditated murder, he left the tavern after getting beat up, and came back with the intent to kill someone.
The difference is in intent. In the case cited, by retreiving the dagger after the fact and returning, he showed an intent and premeditation to cause harm. Additionally, he left the place he was in danger, went to a safe location, and then returned to the danger. Even in strong self defense states, this is a no no and will get you convicted more often than not. Because by returning to the danger, you are, in effect, engaging the threat and not reacting to it. Obviously, there are factors that can complicate and change this rationale but, it generally holds.
However, Kyle was armed the entire time and didn't return to the threat once retreated. So, this case law doesn't even really apply on its face.
Yep. It speaks to intent. Having a weapon on your person in a dangerous area is reasonable. Acquiring one to continue and escalate a confrontation that was otherwise ended is completely different.
Nit-pick. He didn't "become" a murderer, he proved pre-meditation of deadly force. I think.
Curious that Gaige Grosskreutz pointing his pistol at Rittenhouse was left out of the "simplification" of the situation. Something which he previously lied about and famously admitted to on the stand.
@@v-2010 Lol he's a hero and a licensed medical professional, not some larping teenager
@@v-2010 lol that’s a hell of a stretch.
GG had every reason to believe KR was an active shooter when he approached him.
@@v-2010 shame he didn’t
@@christopherbrice5473 A convicted criminal that illegally carried a concealed firearm, there thats Grosskreutz for ya.
@@CrestOfArtorias Convicted of what?
The fact that Rosenbaum had repeatedly been threatening to kill everybody at Car Source obviously didn't help his chances of staying alive .
And it helped the Jury in determining self defence by Rittenhouse.
I don't get this rationale as if anything this seems to reflect the opposite. I'd say it did push the jury in their verdict even though that doesn't make sense for other reasons, but nobody else was trying to kill the guy and if anything they were just staying away from the guy. The other victims were responding to the shooting of Rosenbaum which goes against this line of thinking.
@@dustynesmith You don't understand why a jury might have found a kid used reasonable force in defending himself by shooting dead a convicted pedo who spent all night threatening to kill him and then chased him down a street and tried to rip his gun out of his hands?
@@bjchit I understand why. Juries are morons. They let killers walk free all the time.
@@dustynesmith Only moron is the one who thinks 3 convicted criminals attacking a 17 year old unprovoked are "victims".
@@bjchit He shot at 4 people, so I thank you for admitting you didn't watch the trial and don't know jack shit about it. Go troll elsewhere, klansman.
21:37 This is a really shit take. This is basically saying that no form of self-defense should be acceptable, and that if you were attacked and defended yourself you could be murdered because someone else thought you murdered someone.
At the time, Grosskreuz was not in peril. Kyle Rittenhouse was running away. You can't argue that would be self-defense. Even IF Kyle had murdered someone, unless you witnessed it first hand and were able to either defend yourself or others in that moment, Grosskreuz would have been convicted of murder.
Can you make a video going over the prosecution & defense in court? Like perhaps speaking on their tactics & potential miscues?
Maybe put it in longform on Nebula? I would watch it 🙂
Maybe reacting to it, like his videos about realism with lawyers on films and series ^^
He'd actually have to watch the Trial then. something he obviously didn't do to make this video.
The segment on the prosecution would be very short:
- Tactics: none
- Potential Miscues: Everything.
He can't because he obviously did not watch the trial. Maybe he watched the CNN shorts?
"Grosskreutz then puts his hands up while armed with a pistol".
But he then lowered his arms, and levelled his (illegally owned and carried) pistol at Kyle Rittenhouse.
That was the point at which Kyle Rittenhouse shot him.
Funny how the language he used avoided these key details...
I don't think the "illegally owned and carried" part is relevant, seeing as the legality of ownership doesn't have any effect on whether Kyle Rittenhouse was justified (since there's no way he even could've known), and more importantly, because gun control is wrong and fundamentally illegitimate.
@@NathanTAK "because gun control is wrong and fundamentally illegitimate."
There are quite a few laws I think are wrong, but that doesn't mean I can simply ignore them.
Also the prosecution argued (unsuccessfully) that Kyle Rittenhouse had an illegal gun, in an attempt to weaken his defence, so what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
@@BedsitBob You don't have to ignore them, but I would argue that it's poor form to go out of your way to call attention to someone's status as having violated a law you consider immoral, unless your point in doing so is to criticize it. After all, there is no _shame_ in breaking an unjust law.
Also I'm interested in the "sauce for the goose" thing; it's _"good_ for the goose" where I live (Pacific Northwest), and interdialectic variation is fascinating.
@@NathanTAK Yet the prosecution drew attention to Kyle Rittenhouse (allegedly) breaking that same unjust law.
As for "what's sauce for the goose", it's a British saying, which I presume comes from the idea you put sauce on goose, when eating it.
I didn't know that self-defense includes running after the attacker. How could Grosskreutz use self defense law for himself?
He could of mistaken Kyle running to safety as him running to hurt more people. Not saying that's what he was thinking, but it's possible.
@@godlikemachine645 Hmmmm... It is possible. But that removes 'self-' from 'defense'.
@@godlikemachine645 that's still not self defense
@@Birrrrra self defense laws allow the use of force to prevent harm or potential death from happening to someone else. For example, if you see someone walking around attacking people and causing them harm, you are allowed to step in and stop the attack.
@@cyberhendrix that maybe justified but it still wouldn't count as self defense
My opinion would be, he was not actively engaging anyone with his firearm, until he was assaulted.
I couldn't find a reasonable escape from that situation, when Kyle tripped and fall to the ground.
Didn't he point it at people before that?
@@KiwiPhotoGuy that would impose a duty to retreat which he satisfied. He was running away until he tripped and fell.
He also restrained from shooting other people coming at him because he had the wherewithal to acknowledge them retreating when looking down the barrel of an AR-15.
@@Nimish204 “tripped and fell” man was being chased down.
Not the mention the only reason why he was there in the first place was to protect his grandparents buisness from looters
Bashing someone over the head 3 times with a skateboard is most certainly deadly force, not even arguably. You'd have to have never actually held a skateboard to think that's debatable. It'll maybe hurt you a bit more than a baseball bat by virtue of being more awkward to hold, but it's essentially the same for the person you're whacking.
@TrucksR US Well said.
It's like the people who think that screwdrivers aren't deadly weapons. If it can be used to kill, then it's potentially a deadly weapon. It depends on the intent of the user, and Huber's intent is pretty obvious.
Binger was pointing Kyle's gun at the jury to defend his casework from them.
I guess you could say the jury couldn't convict even with a gun to their head...
20:00 Getting hit by a skateboard is deadly force. Guy in Santa Ana died in 2015 from a single headshot with a skateboard. Sorry, but you’re wrong.
Folks who don't skate forget that a skateboard is just a piece of hardwood. Picture getting smacked across the face with a 2x4.
It's not about being wrong hes trying script cover for msm
There was also another case much more recently of a guy who died from a skateboard to the head outside a Starbucks.
@@ae6401 he probably got paid or is one of those anti gun commies
@@ae6401 lmao okay
If you are wielding a firearm and are attacked, a threat of deadly force is always present as your weapon can be taken from you and used against you.
This is a defense that is used frequently defending police officers in incidents of shooting unarmed citizens. If it works for an officer, it should work for a civilian, the law doesn't change if there are no other crimes factoring in.
That’s provocation lol
@@kaelanbradford3664 “Shall not be infringed”. The only reason I conceal is to not make myself a target.
@@mnomadvfx You do know that Kyle DID NOT take the gun across state lines, even the prosecution conceded that fact.
@@mnomadvfx but they ran after him. and brandishing and open-carry are different, whether or not you think it should be legal is irrelevant here. he was open-carrying, not brandishing.
It really only becomes justified if they try to take the gun away from you, and if you didn’t brandish or draw it first. If you’re fighting with someone and the gun stayed in the holster as a civillian and they try to take it from you, that’s the same as a deadly force threat
A full force strike to the side of the head with a skateboard can 100% be considered deadly force
Plus you can see him GRAB the gun and try to pull it away from Kyle.
obvious - he doesnt care.
Especially since he could’ve easily fallen over and cracked his skull on the pavement
Of course they thought Kyle was a mass shooter, what if they were right? You would be buying a signature skateboard would you not?
they should only play at full speed.
The prosecution has the burden to disprove self-defense in Wisconsin. The defense just has to claim it. That was argued many times during the case because the Prosecution kept trying to trick the judge into thinking they didn't have to.
I mean when discussing duty to retreat and self defense.... three men got shot and not a single one of them was running away from Kyle. Kyle shot three people, he was running away from all three of them.
The last person he shot was aware he was an active shooter fleeing the scene. If he was really afraid of an armed man he would've disarmed him after shooting him.
That's ignoring the rending first aid or calling 911 immediately....
@@Novellization no, the last person thought Kyle was working for the police (per his own testimony), that's probably why he decided to try executing Kyle.
Also you should probably look up the definition of active shooter, Kyle doesn't even come close.
@@Novellization by fleeing the scene do you mean heading toward the police? Because that’s literally the direction he was going…
@@Novellization McGinnis, while rendering first aid to Rosenbaum, was struck in the back of the head by one of the rioters, and you're proposing Rittenhouse should have stayed there to also render first aid?
To what end? So he could be beat to death by the rioters?
@@cormoran2303 the actual testimony is that he thought that would be, and didn't attempt to render aid or call real first aid responders. He did run to call his friend, then his parents and finally to chit chat with "like minded" people he met that night.
After you lawfully shoot a man, you stay to render aid and wait for law enforcement. Did you not get this info at CC class? Wait lemme guess....
The thing I've learned from this simply because of how much of the video it took up: regardless of who started it, criminality can change fast depending on who ended it and how and why.
....in American Law
@@TheIrishGamerGuywhich is what the video is about...
It wouldn't change here considering the video evidence showing hesitation and retreat at every turn by Rittenhouse and relentless pursuit on the part of the people he shot at. Remember kids, it isn't self defense if you chase down the threat, that's vigilantism or murder, depending on what other evidence is available.
@@aaronsams8605 That's where intent comes in, at what point does chasing someone down change from attempted assault or worse to attempt to restrict the lethality of someone who has actually committed murder.
@satorukuroshiro it would change when the individual being chased continues to be an active threat. Rittenhouse hadnt fired a shot and I don't believe (I'm saying this without having just seen the video) raised his gun at anybody. Someone in their right mind would take the factors like the fact he was running towards a police line and keeping his weapon towards the ground and assume the person was seeking safety. I would like to know the opinions of the officers in the police line who saw it go down, but both I and the jury have already drawn a conclusion so I don't think it's worth the effort.
One correction, he was found not guilty on five of the charges, the sixth was dropped because it was agreed to be not applicable by the prosecution due to the writing of the law.
That's one of the things that told me this guy never even watched the trial.
@@rugbyralph288 "Reviewed the law extensively"
That's a matter of opinion. Ive now watched 3 different reactions to this video with commentary from a total of 10 lawyers and Legal Eagle seems like he doesnt actually know the applicable law. He doesnt even know the facts of the case, and if he does he is deliberately omitting some for personal or partisan reasons.
That's incorrect. The prosecution agreed that it wasn't a short barrel rifle, but still maintained that he was in violation because he did not have a hunting permit. That was 1 of 3 requirements for him to lawfully have the rifle.
20:49 the weak version:
"... jury was right that Kyle DIDN'T use self-defense.."
🧐🧐🧐
@@NYCFenrir The judge still ruled that the prosecution was incorrect in their assessment. At the end of the day it is the judge's job to rule on matters of law and he did. His ruling may not have been the intent of the legislators but if so then it's the legislators fault for failing to make the legislation clear. If a law is ambiguous then it is standard practice to use the most lenient interpretation of the law. Otherwise, you end up punishing people for basically picking the wrong interpretation. After all the law is not just for the judiciary it is also for reference by the general public so that they can make sure that they're adhering to it.
I know your time was limited but I wish you would have addressed the prosecutor's bringing up Rittenhouse remaining silent or hopefully in future video. For me that was jaw dropping. There other things the prosecutor spent time on like video games and stressing that Rittenhouse had an AR-15 not some other weapon.
The prosecutor was either incompetent or straight up malicious.
@@avatarblood0 malicious. Several former proxecuters have said that incompetence isn't an excuse because it's such a basic thing for prosecuters to follow. They wanted to throw the trial to get another chance at it after they messed up so many times with their witnesses.
Well the AR15 should speak to intent, insofar as choice of weapon suggests the work. When people say they have an AR15 for home defense, I laugh because it's an anti-personnel rifle for marksmen at intermediate ranges. It also throws hot brass around, to bounce off the walls and hit you in the face. A decent revolver would therefore be a better choice- and if you're fool enough to go room to room looking for an early night, at least a revolver offers far less leverage coming around a corner for a burglar to wrestle it away.
@@avatarblood0 I think he was both
@@unclejoeoakland lol tell me you don't know anything about guns without telling me you don't know anything about guns
Didn't even touch on the fact that Prosecution changed it's strategy at the very end of the trial? Provocation wasn't even a thing till they brought in that Drone video and tried to pretend you could see him point his gun.... strangely enough they didn't feel the need to call the witness that they were claiming he pointed the gun at, lol.
Not to mention the prosecution withheld the HD version of the video from the defense.
Probably because he didn't watch so didn't know that
@@Ruturaj22 yeah. He lied about how peaceful the portland protests were, then my class mate got murdered there.
I watched the HD footage and I still could not see Kyle aiming a weapon at Rosenbaum before he pursued Kyle
@@dallascopp4798 so did everyone else including the prosecution lol. That claim has been debunked by sever "tech" people showing that "kyles arm" was there several frames before Kyle was aka, what they were claiming was his arm was not
1:53 Is it that hard to follow basic firearms safety in a court house?
As someone who didn't grow up around firearms and has gone through the CCW course in Wisconsin - I can tell you that if you don't have the CCW license or been around firearms long enough, you do not know LMTT. However, I feel it's pretty common knowledge to not point a firearm at anything you don't want to shoot (I knew this before I ever held a firearm).
Sadly, this is the second attorney in a court room that I had seen mishandle a firearm in front of a jury. They really should have a professional train everyone in the court on how to handle a firearm, even if it's been checked and cleared by another when there's a case involving one.
Great explanation. I would ask, looking at the docs you have up at 5:25, section 2b says that the privilege lost is regained by withdrawing. That's where I landed on the vid of Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse is in full retreat there. Even if he ever had provoked and lost the self-defense claim, certainly sprinting away from the attacker counts as withdrawing, right?
Especially considering he was chased to a literal corner & was boxed in like an animal (a wall of cars to be precise)
Also at 20 mins in hes not taking into account the threat of a VIOLENT MOB! It wasnt just one person's kick, it was an entire crowd of people with weapons (melee weapons can be seen when they're chasing him) so the threat of obvious bodily harm is CLEARLY apparent. They didnt even need to take his gun for that. Violent mobs can tear you limb from limb man. I feel like hes in a very comfortable place & isnt putting himself in his shoes of being chased like that. Legal eagle himself would be fearing great bodily harm or death! I will give him that of course hed never put himself in this situation like how kyle did but still. But yeah he was judging each "weapon" whether foot, gun, or skateboard on its own but not taking into account that the weapons were combined together & with more coming. I'd also add that kyle did clearly try to retreat as much as he possibly could have
If you look up people hurt in riots it gets grim quickly, people torn into different directions or being crushed under tons of stomps. Not letting yourself get into that situation is what anyone would do because once your at their mercy, well that's just it. Your life is literally at their mercy
@@KeatrithAmakiir um... Rosenbaum was the first guy shot. How was Kyle running from a "murder" only to shot the first time... your statement proves you know nothing about thus situation.
@UCBD1FCxzjPajtnqdARulskg Except Guage was a convicted felon and not allowed to own a gun locally or federally....good guy with a gun gtfoh lmfao.
@@cjtuckerbpmc what? Dude maybe try to read my comment before uttering so stupidity. 1 Kyle defended himself. 2 I'm glad he killed a pedo. 3 I was pointing out the fact the guy said Rosenbaum was chasing Kyle because Kyle had shot someone which is impossible because Rosenbaum was the first person shot.
Seriously take a reading comprehension class.
@@cjtuckerbpmc c o p i u m
Some of the facts you put out are different than facts that were what was said at the trial. Such as the man that got shot in the arm said Kyle did not shoot at him until he pointed a gun at his head.
Does it matter the video is already too long
Welcome to the legal arm of the left wing media machine, you must be new.
@@lupuswarrior6785 Yes it should matter on a youtube channel that has this much influence/reach and claims to review legal cases according to the trial. This was such a transparent trial with evidence available to anyone that googles it.
Not to mention he posted about not regretting shooting Kyle when he had the chance on a different Facebook account...
@@lupuswarrior6785 "it's too long" isn't a good defense for being factually inaccurate.
The Wisconsin law is interesting is that it applies a duty to retreat to anyone who may have provoked an attack through their conduct. The trouble that the prosecution had, even before the trial started, is that all the video footage shows Rittenhouse retreating the whole time. Under Wisconsin law, this made pretty much whatever happened prior irrelevant. It didn't matter if you think Rittenhouse had no right to be there, or if Rittenhouse had provoked the incident, or if Rittenhouse and gone to the street with the intention of being violent - none of that had to do with the law. In fact, the Wisconsin law explicitly says that you regain the right to self-defense if you make every attempt to retreat out of the bad situation you put yourself in.
In short, the Wisconsin law basically says, "Don't chase people. If you do, you lose the right to self-defense and whomever you are chasing it regains it."
I looked up the Wisconsin law within 24 hours of the incident, read through it, and then watched the extensive videos that were available. And I knew pretty much immediately that he was not guilty of murder under Wisconsin law. In fact, it was so obvious that he was not guilty of murder under Wisconsin law, that it was obvious that if the case were not politicized that the prosecution would never have undertaken to bring those charges.
You claim that reasonable minds can differ about his. I disagree. This is a self-serving and nakedly stupid argument. Reasonable minds can differ about whether the Wisconsin law is just. They can't differ about whether he is guilty under that law. If you find Rittenhouse guilty under this law, there is something definitely not reasonable about you. It would require for you to believe, for example, that Rosenbaum is acting perfectly reasonably to chase a man with a rifle for 40 yards after having threatened to kill that man. I ask you, if you would chase a guy with a rifle in that manner? Because if your answer is, "Yes.", I'd question your sanity. Likewise, it would require me to believe that if I were chasing you in this situation, you would not fear for your life. That also is an unreasonable belief, since you couldn't possibly no what sort of person I am. As it happens, after the fact, we know that the man was a convicted pedophile that had just been released from a mental institution, so it seems likely (after the fact of course) that Kyle's beliefs were not only reasonable, but not even actually mistaken. But, again, you wouldn't need to know that to suspect that someone that chased you for 40 yards was dangerous. If I chased someone across a parking lot who was carrying a rifle, my reason is that I would be very likely to get shot. If someone tells me that they don't think that, I conclude they aren't a very reasonable person.
Likewise, while it might be possible for both parties in a violent conflict to be acting in self-defense, the trouble is that under Wisconsin law that's impossible in this case because only one side was excercising a duty to retreat. Either Rittenhouse was provocative or not, but if he was provocative, he was retreating and therefore regained the right to self-defense. And if he was not provocative then well, he was just being attacked and therefore had the right of self-defense. But the same argument can't apply to the people chasing him! That's why your alternative reality argument is nonsense.
Now, if you want to have a really interesting argument about something reasonable people might disagree about, let's question that claim that Rittenhouse made a bad situation worse. Because at least that claim is disputable, whereas I find no evidence whatsoever that under Wisconsin law this wasn't self-defense.
He provoked the incident by being part of a group interrupting rioters committing arson if you want to put it in to literal context.
@@shangri-la-la-la
Even then, that’s still protecting the city there, and it’s clear given that was there simply positively, given that he was proving medical aid.
Like in every single possible way, he was justified and heroic for what he did
Best comment, and perfect sum up
Political prosecution.
@@Jonathan-A.C. The point of my comment was to show how stupid the arguments "Kyle shouldn't have been there" and "Kyle provoked it" are.
How in the world do you think multiple attackers, one using a skateboard as a weapon, are enacting non-deadly force? Any CCW course would teach you that multiple attackers and a weapon that can cause extreme bodily harm is grounds to use deadly force in defense.
I've known since the first five seconds I've ever heard this guy talk that he was a biased and politically driven figure. His name is insulting to eagles
Same with being kicked in the head while being on the ground... It also constitutes deadly force. I'm shocked that a lawyer would brush over this fact.
Pretty much. The notion that unarmed people can't be a deadly threat is pure nonsense.
Hopefully Kyle Rittenhouse will sue Devin Stone. Although I'm sure Devin doesn't have the balls to cover how Rittenhouse is legally going after the people guilty of libel and slander.
@@spartanswhatisyourprofessi2825I mean. Name one person who isn’t…especially a content creator 🤦🏻♀️🙄
"Sometimes you just have to take a beating."
While the trial was in progress, in my community, an unarmed career criminal, out on probation, beat a 36-year-old Hispanic man TO DEATH. Just saying.
Submit to the mob is something you can haphazardly say when you aren't the one being run down at night while gunshots are going off and people are shouting and running at you.
It's not your life or health on the line, so what if some Kenosha kid gets brain damage when his head hits the pavement or worse. You go about your life all the same.
You can't live your life with the hindsight to trust people that, in real hindsight, were actually criminals to begin with. If someone runs you down knowing you are armed, they have far worse intentions than just disarming you. It is self evident.
What exactly are you "just saying"? How is that relevant to anything in this video??
@@KrazyKaiser If you watched the trial, and not just an extremely distorted take of it, you would know that in the closing statements, the prosecution told the jury 'Sometimes you just have to take a beating'. The OP is giving an example of what can happen when you 'take a beating', and why Rittenhouse was absolutely within his rights to defend himself.
@@jackoh991 All I'm "claiming" is that "taking a beating" can kill you, with proof.
@@jackoh991
Firstly, LEagle mentioned racial statistics IN THIS VIDEO and completely overlooked the fact that Kyle Rittenhouse himself IS a minority.
Kyle Rittenhouse is Hispanic. That's why it's important.
Rosembaum, an unarmed career child diddler who was released from a mental institution THAT NIGHT went to a racial protest, yelled racial slurs, made death threats, and then assaulted a minor. The case of Kyle Rittenhouse is MUCH WORSE, and the fact you're not aware of why shows why LEagle is a failure as an educator.
22:20 Objection Misstating the evidence. The problem with the Grossgreits(spelling?) argument is kyle was actively running away from him at this point and no longer presenting an immediate danger and arguably has regained his innocence at this point in the confrontation. This is apparent by Gross himself running up to kyle and questioning him as he ran away. No reasonable person would run up to someone who they thought was an active shooter or a danger to themselves and angrily demand answers. Its just not reasonable.
Again, it goes both ways. In the Tucson shooting of Gabby Giffords, unarmed people approached and subdued the shooter. Is that "unreasonable"? What reasonable unarmed person would approach an armed person who has already demonstrated the intent to kill? As for attempting to subdue versus angry questioning, the attempt to, you know, "ask questions first, shoot later" is arguably more reasonable over the inverse. And the intent was to question, not self-defense. That would, at worst, constitute provocation which brings us back to the arguments that supported Rittenhouse, but for the other party. In other words, any justification for Rittenhouse's conduct can arguably be granted to any of the parties involved. They all could have legally killed one another. It was a free-for-all -- fun to think about.
Thanks for trying to drop a formal objection in your UA-cam comment hot take though. Your law degree and bar certification will be arriving via certified mail in six to eight weeks.
Grosskreutz became the provocateur when he initiated an interaction with a retreating Rittenhouse. He pulled a gun out after chasing Kyle. Therefore he needed to apply that duty to retreat as the provocateur before deadly force would be acceptable, which he most certainly did not meet.
Right, dude pulled out his gun and chased after kyle while he was literally running to turn himself in.
@@thebeeemill did you even watch the video?
It could be argued as reasonable. There are lots of circumstances of people confronting and challenging active shooters or shooters in general. Especially if it's a dynamic situation and multiple people (who might be the potential shooter) are carrying weapons.
The gun NEVER CROSSED state lines
Read the pinned comment, LE acknowledged that.
@@Ni999 Yeah, plenty of other wrong statements in this video, apparently LE does not know the facts, like most.
@@James-dc3yt He knows. Just doesn’t care
@@Ni999 he waited all this time to make a video, and failed to put that into video that leftists like yourself regurgitate like prophecy from God.
@@justinb7940 except at that point Kyle didn't have possession of the gun meaning Kyle never crossed state lines with the gun at any point.
If you discharge a loaded firearm and people are still willing to attempt to attack you, it is frightening to think what would deter them without the use of deadly force.
It is easy to see how a brave person might attempt to stop some one who they know to have shot someone, and perceive as a potential mass shooter.
@@zacharywheat6371 He was running away
@@zacharywheat6371 Sure.... if said person was running around shooting people, not just escaping. Even if you think he is a murderer trying to escape, Your first reaction mustn't be running behind him trying to attack him.
Specially when you can be wrong, like all these people who were wrong in their suppositions and end up death/injured.
Every pro gun person out there thinks that way. The idea of stopping mass shooters for instance. All these people saw this guy gun down a man that was trying to potentially get the gun out of the hands of a clearly trigger happy teenager. Every person there was justified in attacking him both legally and morally.
@@yetekt6953 ya, criminals tend to flee the scene of their crime. Probably realized that people weren’t very happy with his decision to murder somebody. Not to mention all the gun pointing. People were on edge to begin with and then he goes and actually starts pulling his trigger.
Conveniently did not show or mention that Gaige pointed his pistol and advanced on Rittenhouse before getting shot. That omission is a very big deal. Would be worth noting that Rosenbaum was threatening to cause severe bodily harm to multiple people earlier, including Rittenhouse, which is part of the self defense.
Of course Legal Eagle didn't. He has a narrative to peddle to his idiot viewers instead of just telling the truth of the situation about Kyle.
JC He is a political hack. He does not care about the law if it does not advance his Marxist agenda.
That’s when he tried to sit there and say that Kyle‘s making shit up by saying he’s making a self-aggrandizing statement. He’s glossing over the fact that many people testified to the threats and simply saying no such thing existed really.
Eagle is a racist shill
@@ThatsaToilet it is far worse. LE wants you silenced and put in an oven to die. It is not even human like and should be sent to the same gulags it wants gun owners, libertarians, and free speech advocates sent to. I have watched it for years and and his hatred of America and freedom grows stronger each day. It will call on the stooges at the FBI to fix me or at least put me on a deplorable list.
Idk man, I'm not an American, but it seems to me that the only reason there's any controversy over this case is because of its hyper-politicisation.
I would have thought this was a pretty cut and dried case of self-defence, even if there had been a duty to retreat law in place. I don't how you could watch that footage and not conclude that Kyle was retreating and in imminent danger, if not necessarily of death, then at least of getting the shit beat out him, and he really didn't have any other options available to him.
what country are you from? just curious .
Same as a non American it seemed pretty obviously self defense.
A BLACK guy named Andrew Coffee shot at police Bc they executed a no knock warrant. He didn’t know it was police and argued self defense on a murder charge he got after the shooting. Jury acquitted him the SAME DAY AS KYLE RITTENHOUSE WAS ACQUITTED. You never heard about Andrew Coffee Bc the media never reported it because it doesn’t fit their narrative that a black guy would’ve been found guilty if they were in Kyle’s shoes that night.
Devin just claimed this was not "clear cut" but that's because he omitted a ton of evidence of this trial.
American tribalism is cancer. They will only wake up when it's already too late.
I can't believe people are still arguing about this. There are hours of footage that clearly show what happened. Choosing not to see the truth in those videos is just denial at this point.
And what is the truth?
@@Trottelheimer its selfdefense. the only reason you can not see that is if you are politically entrenched and see rittenhouse as your opponent.
in both situations, rittenhouse tried to remove him self from said situation.
in both situations, he was attacked first.
in both situations, he had to fear for his life or great bodily harm.
moraly and legaly, its self defense.
Rittenhouse had no business being there. He shot three people. He didn't try to give medical attention to the three people he shot.
He fled area after shooting three people.
He failed to turn himself in to police after shooting three than crossed a state line after committing felonies to go home.
Rittenhouse should of gone to prison 10 years minimum
@@puellamservumaddominum6180 rittenhosue had more reason being there then any of the people he shot.
he did not try to give medical attention to the people he shot because there was a hostile mob that just tried to kill him, remember?
he did not flee the area but was running towards police to turn him self in (we have that on video). that they told him in no uncertain terms to leave is not his fault (we have that on video as well). once home, he did turn him self in.
and.. all of these things having quite literally nothing to do with the question of 'was that self defense?'
@@TheLoki7281 so you really think Rittenhouse couldn't of used his phone to call police? I am sure they would of paid attention if he said he just shot three people.
Interesting how when Legal Eagle describes the shooting of Grosskreutz he completely leaves out the fact that he pointed a gun at his head, and then brings it up later, as if these are two different incidents.
Legal is a hard left California lawyer if you've watched his channel. This isn't surprising.
He also points out that any interpretation of this where Kyle is reasonably found innocent also applies to Grosskreutz, who approached a kid with a rifle running from a group of people who were all shouting he just shot someone. Grosskreutz had every reason to believe Kyle was a deadly threat to both himself and everyone on the street, and under the laws that said Kyle was innocent, was well within his rights to threaten and shoot Kyle. If he had, he would have saved another life.
Growl about the liberal left all you like, but every civil right that applies to conservatives also applies to liberals, no matter how much you wish otherwise.
Yea it’s a real shame. Dude is so biased it’s unbelievable.
@@joshs9066 I normally like his content too. Interesting how he slants this one so much. Makes me wonder what he'd have said if it was Kayla Rittenhouse instead.
I only watched this video to see how far left his analysis was. He is off the charts biased left. I would never let him anywhere near my defense team.
The prosecution was the best defense Kyle never paid for.
I’m convinced they tanked it on purpose
He was innocent regardless. Kiddo
The fact that they asked him on the stand if he plays Call of Duty was laughable. For all we know the prosecutor also plays Call of Duty, question was 100% irrelevant
@@MrGuideElk he really wasn’t, kiddo
@@KC-py5vq damn how much time did he get?!
Rittenhouse runs, object thrown at him, points gun but does not fire, runs again, turns just before his assailant reaches him, fires.
That's just the first encounter and as far as I'm concerned he showed incredible discipline there. Tried to run and his attacker asked to be shot. The idea that any of this is unclear is why we have such division in our country right now. We can't even agree on who is the aggressor when one guy is running away and the other is chasing him.
Oh, the people who think Kyle is guilty know damn well that he was being chased and was legally justified in defending himself, they just don't care because their devotion to socialism/radical leftist ideology is far more important than their appreciation of the US's legal justice system, which, in their eyes, is a corrupt system worthy of tearing down. They think he was guilty simply because he was, in their eyes, trying to stop people from achieving racial equity by burning poor and minority communities to the ground.
@@jonathanw1019 I don't know that I agree with that. Certainly, that describes why they want to believe in his guilt. That said, I think they actually do believe he was not legally justified because they are being lied to and are too lazy/uninterested in learning the truth.
"Discipline" would've actually been him staying at home and doing chores with his idiot mom. Who the duck let's their 17 year old go to a warzone for an insured business?
@@matthewbittenbender9191 Funny you mention it, but a NYT journalist went to Kenosha to investigate claims of "insured businesses" and found that most of the areas/businesses being burned and looted were in low income areas occupied primarily by smaller, minority owned stores who didn't have insurance. She tried to run it prior to the 2020 election and the NYT editors put it aside.
Also, Kyle had every right to be there, if not more so than the protestors/rioters. Kenosha was more his community than the likes of Grosskruetz or the other two low-lifes who attacked him.
Never mind that people have no obligation to stand aside and watch society burn should the State abscond from their duties to protect its citizens and tax-paying businesses.
Like when a guy calls 911 and admits on tape he has a gun and is chasing an unarmed child through his own neighborhood. The law still sides with the dude with the gun.
A few issues with the video.
1. You make a statement near the end that if Wisconsin had the duty to retreat, the outcome could have been completely different. I disagree, as Rittenhouse DID retreat or attempt to retreat in ALL cases...so even with a duty to retreat, he did.
2. You make a big deal of Joseph Rosenbaum being unarmed. This isn't completely relevant and here's why: We know after the fact the Rosenbaum was unarmed, but
A. at the time this was taking place and Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse didn't know if Rosenbaum was armed or not. If a random guy starts chasing you, they could have a knife or gun on them, or could be unarmed. You don't know. This is important because what matters was Rittenhouse's knowledge at the time it was happening. Us finding out he was unarmed after the fact is not important.
B. EVEN WITH Rosenbaum being unarmed, an unarmed man can still cause death or serious bodily harm to another. Especially if/when he went for Rittenhouse's weapon.
You forgot to add that Rosenbaum ambushed Kyle, he had a friend named Ziminski aid in the ambush, Ziminski was armed with a handgun, and Ziminski fired the first shot during the ambush.
Still a good comment, just adding info
@@purplefreedom1631 Plus in some videos of the ambush, Rosenbaum was seen carrying something in his hand which many witnesses claim was a moltov cocktail but later was identified as some liquid object in a bag. Either way they ran after Kyle shortly after the security group he was with told him to hide after he had put out their dumpster fire that was blocking EMSA and Firefighters
20:02 Huber struck Rittenhouse’s head with his skateboard. Does intent not matter in this case?
During the closing arguments, Krouse of the prosecution tried claiming that Rittenhouse was excessive when he shot Rosenbaum. He tried claiming that the first shot entered Rosenbaum's hip, shattering it and that he was no longer a threat to Rittenhouse, therefore he did not need to fire anymore shots. The time frame from the first shot to the last shot on Rosenbaum was .73 seconds. In less than a second is anyone supposed to conclude that a threat is no longer a threat. I was taught in the military that you keep firing until you are positive that the threat is nullified. This could be the reason jump kick man did not come back to hurt Kyle any further. He would've heard two sound barrier breaking cracks go right by his ear and decided that it was better to retreat from Kyle, instead of re-engaging him.
I was taught the same but the military law and civilian law are not the same and a civil would never be allowed to kill someone while in the military it might be the objective. Even in self defense, it never states that killing someone is a reasonable reaction but rather addresses killing as a by-product of deadly force (Which is just a use of force that that is likely to kill someone) which can be argued for. All of that being said, I am with you that you cannot expect someone to make a decision on whether a threat is neutralized or not in less than a second especially since unlike movies it's not that obvious if your shot hit, or did any real damage. I think the prosecution was just grasping at straws at the end of the trial
You're going to have a hard time finding anyone to defend the Prosecution, lol.
@@yairweinberg1647 it's just a good rule in general.
It was so dumb when you Biden said something about cops should shoot people in the legs first.
.....
No. And the reason for that is you don't ever shoot anything you don't intend to kill. So after the aim is taken in the trigger is pulled doesn't matter how many times you shoot a person, the intention is that they die.
@@yairweinberg1647 I remember a documentary against "police brutality", there was this trial the cop lost because he was asked "if you didn't consider him a threat enough to kill him, then why did you shoot him?"
Why didn’t anyone take warning shots into account? Rosenbaum (or whoever had the pistol) fired into the air as a warning shot, demonstrating that he had no intent to hurt anyone at random. In fact, if he was intending to kill someone, the shot could have hampered his efforts by drawing attention to him. Rittenhouse could have fired at the ground as a warning shot in an attempt to scare them off, but he didn’t. Probably because he was a teenage civilian with possibly little training in firearm practices. On either side of the argument, you can’t really place Rittenhouse as completely innocent and just in his actions, because he decided to put himself in a dangerous situation with little training or credentials to effectively deal with it.
If I was a juror, and saw him running in basically every video shot from people chasing him, I'd say he met his "duty to retreat". Also, "made a move to Rittenhouse's side" is a little too "neutral" compared to what actually happened. It almost sounds like you're saying he was shot with his hands up, which was not the case.
i think he's just trying to stay objective and non biased, but overcompensating a bit so he doesn't get accused of being a white supremacist lol.
I think it's possible he was not trying to attack Kyle. He was probably chasing Kyle to make sure he didn't get away and turned himself in to police.
Once Kyle fell, Gaige started to slow down, so I think it's possible his goal was to follow Kyle at a distance, but once Kyle fell, if Gaige was running fast, it might still take him a couple dozen feet to come to a stop, so he would've closed the distance between himself and Kyle significantly. Then he raised his hands when Kyle pointed his firearm at him - a natural reaction. Apparently Gaige was trained as a medic, so his mind might have been on jumping to help others that are hurt, causing him to react more strongly than others would have to seeing the skateboard guy collapse to the ground after being shot at. So when Gaige jumped back into action (and lowered his firearm), I think it's possible that this was an instinctual reaction to try to help the skateboard guy that over-rode and caused him to forget that Kyle was holding him at gunpoint. Kyle's attention was probably less on the skateboard guy's wellbeing and more on holding back his pursuers, also a natural reaction, so he probably saw Gaige jumping to action as Gaige doing some sort of feint to try to attack him. The video does seem to show Gaige changing direction, from initially running directly towards Kyle before raising his hands, to running more like past/beside Kyle towards the skateboard guy.
Moral of the story is - if you're in a heated situation and there's someone running away with a firearm and not pointing it towards anyone and you're not sure what the armed person's intents are... you should probably give him space because he doesn't really know what your intents are either.
@@Lochness19 If you said that Gaige was mistaken in trying to perform a citizens arrest, that's possible but to say that he wasnt trying to attack Kyle, I have a hard time buying that one.
@@Lochness19 the video clearly shows Gage retreat once with his hands up only to raise his right hand, the hand with the pistol, directly at Kyles head. Gage said this explicitly during the trial. He said, “ he did not fire until I pointed the gun at him”. Kyle then lifts the weapon and fires. Notice he hits Gage in the right bicep as he is lunging towards Kyle.
@@Lochness19 Gaige was as much a medic during that riot as I was.
Not at fuckin all.
Gaige also testified that he thought Kyle said that he was working with the police and that was why he decided to draw his gun on him.
Objection. An 11 pound skateboard being swung at someone's head is clearly use of deadly force. There have been numerous instances where skateboards were used as a weapon and the individual who used them as such was charged with "assault with a deadly weapon."
In 2002, in Seattle, Timothy Strano was convicted for manslaughter for hitting Demetri Andrews in the head with a skateboard, resulting in Andrews' death 3 days later.
Just this year, in San Diego, Bobby Mikel Lowe severely beat two people with a skateboard by striking them in the head with it, resulting in brain bleeds in both victims. The attacks were unprovoked and Lowe was charged with multiple counts of attempted first degree murder, aggravated mayhem, and assault with a deadly weapon.
He never said it wasn't
@@Bozogumps he directly implied it.
@@yummiestfern2316 Timestamp it then. Because that didn't happen.
@@Bozogumps 20:00 but yeah I guess if you just keep your head 100 yards into the sand, you really can tell yourself anything!
@@zzextras99 He said it was arguable either way. And it is. He never implied that it wasn't deadly force, although I know y'all want to feel like victims and so you always have to have your backs up. Morons
i disagree on the point about grosskreutz.
i doubt he could have had a successful self defence charge like rittenhouse did, because during the trial, he admitted to the defence that rittenhouse did not point or fire his gun at grosskreutz until grosskreutz had pulled out his own gun and was aiming it at rittenhouse.
I'm not so sure that, in an alternate reality where any of those three killed Rittenhouse instead, self-defense would have worked. In each one of those scenarios, they approached Rittenhouse and attacked him first, when any reasonable person would have avoided a so-called active shooter with a rifle.
Just my thoughts on that thought experiment at the end.
Yeah but the moment Rittenhouse points his rifle at any of them threatening to fire on them they would likely enter the selfdefense area again.
Running away from a gunman is more often than not less viable than to shoot them first if you already have your gun out.
@@DiabloDBS Wrong. You cannot argue self defense when you are charging someone aggressively, including grabbing their weapon, kicking them, hitting them with a skateboard, etc. especially if Kyle was running away when this all happened. Once Kyle was on the ground and he was surrounded on all sides, dodging physical attacks on all sides that is 100% self defense all day.
@@390razr your argument against here doesn’t seem to be made on a legal basis
rittenhouse was not an active shooter
@@gregadams5642 after he had shot Rosenbaum, he was an active shooter, and the shot at more people.
20:08 What is considered non-deadly can become deadly when you are on the ground with an angry mob approaching.
Very true. Add to that the fact that the number of deaths by "unarmed" people are double the ones killed by guns.
I mean, you are pretty much on point here - the mob used non-deadly force by definition until... you know, it kills him. A kick to the head is not obvious deadly force until it actually kills you, at which point it is too late.
Everyone seems to forget that the entire body is a deadly weapon when under the right conditions... Elbows, knees, the heel, a good headbutt, a good punch, a good kick. And all that against a hard surface or with a good fall?
@@HiddenRealm kicking someone in the head is grounds for a murder charge here in Germany. It is due to the fact that the perpetrator willing accepts that the damage he does to the victim becomes uncontrollable, as the amount of force doesn't allow foreseeable results.
@@theWebWizrd yeah, a kick to the head 100% has the potential to be deadly, especially when the person is on the ground.
I've been on juries, and there were times we were given jury instructions that were about as easy to figure out as some of the more obscure hieroglyphics from the Valley of the Kings. In one case I was the jury foreman, and I asked what was being talked about, and I was told that it was all there in the jury instructions and that I should not be asking questions of the attorneys and the judge. But how could we make any kind of determination if we didn't have any idea what we were supposed to be determining? This was an assault case, and the victim had stated that he'd said things about the defendant's wife (or girlfriend; I forget which) and had deserved having the stuffings punched out of him by the defendant. We ended up finding the defendant innocent, and from the prosecutor's reaction he didn't like that at all and had quite a bit to say about the "stupid jury."
How many juries have you sat on? What was the most interesting case?
"He had it coming" isn't a defense. If I had been on that jury, then I would have voted guilty.
@@Sewblon you have no clue what actually happened
I expect the reason the person couldn't give you an explanation on the instructions is because those instructions were heavily negotiated by the prosecution and defence. If someone tried to give a "simpler" explanation, then they were effectively bypassing the negotiated instructions.
@@Sewblon : If the jury can't understand the jury instructions, then not guilty is the only option. In a state of confusion, doubt is the only reasonable reaction, and not guilty is the correct reaction to doubt. As soon as the jury was told they could not ask questions, the case may as well have been immediately declared not guilty to save the trouble of useless deliberations.
19:56 I've heard that kicking a downed opponent towards the ground with a shod foot is generally considered to be deadly force - deadly force ofc is any use of force that is LIKELY to cause EITHER death or GREAT BODILY HARM. The drop kick probably would qualify as deadly force don't you think?
Furthermore it seems to me that being chased down by an angry, violent mob escalated the threat to a deadly one immediately. It was never going to be a fight between Rittenhouse and his attackers; if Rittenhouse hadn't ended the threat, then it would have been a fight between Rittenhouse and perhaps a dozen or more attackers. A 12-on-1 fight is absolutely deadly force right off the bat, right?
Sorry weird wording, should've said "it was never going to be an 'ordinary force' fight between Rittenhouse and just one or two attackers"
Also, those attacks could have ended with the attackers stealing the gun. Kyle saved dozens of life by killing the pedo. That night and in the future.
I think he did a fair job until the end when he had to go predictably lefty. On the video he shows someones says something like, "Get his ass!" And he's attacked by _several_ people. LE even mentions cops being nearby. Shouldn't that cut against your pursuit to secure claim? To your point, every additional person exponentially increases difficulty. He also conveniently left out the video where Unicep fakes surrender then pulls the pistol at Kyle, all within maybe two seconds.
Plus he was downed and hit with a skateboard which could easily debilitate someone. The whole context and rapidity of the encounter was glossed over. It's also convenient that Jump Kick Man wasn't ever made to appear despite his part in this. Also, the dead p3do who's on video daring people to shoot him the night of was also conveniently left out. This is the same guy who threw the bag at Kyle and then chased him down. Sounds quite provocative.
So, shooting a defenceless guy 4 times is not to being considered deadly force, or cold-blooded murder, right?
@@matildawagner5598 the “defenseless man” chose to chase the obviously armed teen and proceeded to grab his gun.
His first mistake is obvious: he chased an individual who was clearly armed with the intent of harming him
The second mistake is even greater: he tried to grab the gun from the already distressed teen that he was chasing.
The only appropriate reaction to someone trying to grab your weapon and harm you (probably with the weapon if they were able to take it) is to use that weapon against them. Even more so if you’ve already given them the chance to back off, going as far as running away from the unarmed man.
I love how there are huge differences of opinion about the verdict, but we can all agree that the prosecution was God-awful
The prosecution was the defense's best witness ;-)
There is no room for "opinion" on the verdict, it is derived from the law, and in this instance justice was served.
@@DrMantisToboggan69 and as we all know, the law clearly has the final say on morality.
That's because the prosecution had nothing to work with, apart from sleazy insinuation and dirty tricks. People should be concerned that they will employ the same tactics in every other case.
@@DrMantisToboggan69 The law says slavery is good.
19:38 don't you mean it means that the jury didn't think the prosecution *disproved* self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt?
LE wishful thinking.
hopefully it was a slip of the tongue i would assume a lawyer knows that the law is that someone is innocent until proven guilty not the other way around. but i have heard several things before that set off red flags on this channel that make me think its less about true legality and more about curving a narrative. but that's just a feeling i get nothing i can prove.
@@pyromaniak2736 no, I'm pretty sure he cited Wisconsin law indicating the defense had a "small" burden of proving self defense, meaning the defense had to make a case for self defense, as a valid defense against Rittenhouse's charged crimes. It's at 1:30, called "affirmative defense." For example, if I hear person A shot person B with no context, I may think person A is guilty. Person A's defense might indicate person A was being attacked by person B, thus it was self defense. Oversimplification, but that's what affirmative defense vaguely looks like I think.
I'm endlessly surprised by how ready people are to question experts in their field. Like, what's your background, man? On what basis do you feel you're qualified to question this guy's expertise, as opposed to learn from him? He's an adjunct professor of law, on top of being a practicing lawyer. He knows "innocent until proven guilty." I appreciate a skeptical mind, but you have to earn that privilege to some extent.
I want to add that NONE of this is intended to dismiss your expertise in whatever you're an expert in. I'm sure I would make the choice to learn from you wherever your proficiencies lie, as opposed to question your credentials and expertise. And hey, if you come back at me with a highly educated background in law, hell yeah! Guess I got owned. If you're that qualified though, you could probably do so much more to this guy than just comment on a UA-cam video.
"...And it certainly doesn't mean that he did nothing wrong. It just means the jury didn't think that the prosecution proved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt."
Wait, not only does he go against the basics of legal system "You are innocent until proven guilty" but also slipped that Prosecution didn't prove self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt?
First, Kyle(?) did nothing wrong because innocent until proven guilty.
Second, Prosecution didn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that Kyle murdered anyone.
I for hope of god wish it was 100% slip up, else I'm start thinking he is no better than Blizzard. it is slippery slope. Trust is easy to lose but hard to build up. You can make 10 things right but one mistake can ruin all that hard work.
@@bigknormanator your first paragraph was helpful... But the second and third...?
You jumped down someone's throat that was confused about the information they received and asked a question for clarification. That was unnecessary.
20:00 getting head kicked or kicked in general especially while on the ground is considered deadly force and so is being hit with a skateboard
skateboards make very effective weapons. good mass and narrow side, that cracks an skull wide open good.
Look up security guard hit in head with skateboard in NY city. See what kind of damage a skateboard can do.
Look, sometimes you just have to take the beating
@seb asstion that was one of the prosecutors arguments is sometimes you just gotta take a beatinh
Okay, how about a bag of clothes? Two people were killed.
21:57 This is a terrible argument. You actually imply that a person who defended himself and is retreating away from people towards the police is free game for a lynch mob.
Kyle: "oh ho, you're still chasing me?"
Mob: "we can't lynch you without getting closer"
If he simply put down the gun and walked away, he wouldn't have been chased.
@@timkramar9729 how do you know? would you bet your life on it, because that's what you're asking Kyle to do in that situation
@@waspie1690 because as soon as he dropped the gun, he would no longer have presented a threat for them to react to.
This is a good reason not to be armed. Plus, being armed, demonstrates to others that you're willing to kill. I am not.
I don't need a weapon to defend myself when attacked. I prefer to have my hands open for defense. You can't apply a lock or hold with something in your hand.
@@timkramar9729 he didn’t put it down because it’s his gun, and was afraid people would go after him, because one person already did. He was scared, and you’re putting weird standards on this kid.
You’re expecting this kid to just assume nobody will see him as a threat after shooting someone? That mob wouldn’t have cared
20:00 a skateboard, a kick while you are on the ground... can all be deadly. Also, if the force is enough to cause grave bodily harm then deadly force can be just the right amount of force.
A skateboard seems worse than a bat for example.
Frankly if someone could potentially take your gun away from you that can be deadly. Getting knocked out or incapacitated or having someone grab ahold of your gun could lead to someone taking your gun from you and using it on you.
@@TheGreatTake walking is a form of attack?
@@TheGreatTake running at someone after you've told them you are going to kill them... this could be considered as a form of attack.
@@TheGreatTake you might if you were just in a mental hospital.
"Not many people are crazy enough to pull the trigger, but Rittenhouse was."
Why do you think that to be crazy? How about brave enough, to pull the trigger?
I was really looking forward to you recommending Skillshare to the prosecution
not even skillshare can help binger.
What skills do you need to work at Maccas?
FYI: Rosenbaum's autopsy showed that he had an injury to his hand that was consistent with having his hand over the end of the barrel when a round was discharged...
An EXTREMELY important detail. Just like Rosenbaum had his hands up, but Kyle only fired AFTER he lowered his arm and pointed his gun at Kyle. Another important detail LE left out.
Seems odd to leave out such critical details…almost as of a huge, UA-cam approved legal series would want to keep people confused about the clarity of a self defense trial…
EDIT: Grosskreutz, not Rosenbaum. I’ve been duly corrected and rebuked already. Remember your criticism of me the next time you mix up your children’s names lol.
@@inglebear84 Do you mean Gauge Groskruitz?
@@inglebear84 Rosenbaum was the first guy man, you've got the wrong guy 🤦♂️ Its odd it was left out for the first man who started all of this when he attacked kyle, but when you mix up the people like that, all it does is discredit that you know what you're talking about. Did you even watch the trial at all? How could you not know the name of the surviving person who testified?
Edit: I think legal eagle made lies of omission here but that's exactly why I dont want people mixing up peoples names so we can have an actual credible argument here
This attorney "legal..." Whatever is biased AF. I pointed out his lies by omission. His excessive commentary on poc and fails to recognize bthe massive video coverage.
I watched these videos the day they streamed in Twitter. I'm now watching people like this attorney twist the narrative. Smoothly injecting bias and lying by omission.
It's gross.
@@blackcast2613 Yeah man he literally cut out the part where Kyle is HIT IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD with a fist or a weapon while running away then attacked by one of the actual "alleged" victims with the skateboard in the back BEFORE he falls.
Legal eagle literally cuts out SUCH AN IMPORTANT PART & just cuts to kyle tripping. He only tripped because he was ATTACKED FROM BEHIND IN THE HEAD. A disgusting omission when that attack that led him to fall is truly what caused Hubers death. Huber hit him from behind as well so it's not like he didnt also cause his own death but still. Cant even claim he cut out people not involved in the case because he cut out an attack from Huber
20:30 "Those saying but for Rittenhouse these shootings wouldn't have happened, are right"
That's not a given. Rosenbaum was belligerent, deranged, and possibly suicidal. If Rittenhouse hadn't been there, there is good reason to believe Rosenbaum would have targeted someone else. It's much truer to say "If Rosenbaum hadn't been there no one would have been killed."
21:28 "Maybe Kyle Rittenhouse retreated at every possible opportunity"
There is no question that Rittenhouse retreated at every opportunity. I don't know why Legal Eagle waffled on this.
Because he's unfortunately biased and has to either appeal to his audience or his own beliefs. It is an interesting thought that if Rosenbaum never began pursuing Rittenhouse, or that he even backed off after his first chance, none of this would've happened. It was his killing that got everyone chasing Rittenhouse and which sparked the tension that lead to 3 other people attempting to attack him on the ground.
@@aaronsams8605
Yes, exacvly
I love the fact that "reasonable people can disagree" is enshrined in law.
To bad those dont exist anymore
Reasonable people can have their own opinions. That's fine as long as people can also agree that opinion does not equal fact.
The thing is, you're not reasonable if you cite Rittenhouse as being a 'White Supremacist'.
i mean it's true. reasonable people disagree while unreasonable people yell and throw insults.
Reasonable people can't always disagree on yes or no questions of fact. Disagreement with facts is the opposite of "reasonable".
I'm confused. How would the verdict have changed if Kyle had a duty to retreat? He was actively retreating immediately prior to every single shooting.
Dont be confused. He acted as if he had the duty, he didnt want to shoot anyone, or he would have earlier.
You're asking too many questions. Just accept that you're a racist and shut up. 😂
Maybe the first one? Where someone raised a gun to him? Maybe he could have fled there, but I'm no expert.
@@frazzleface753 thats some very low energy commentary.
It wouldn't change, because he retreated anyway.
You can spot bias pretty quickly, depending on who says "The protests" "The riots", or simply "The events of"
What a great observation
Well it's bias if the event is an protest and someone calls it a riot. And the reverse is true. If a riot is going on and someone calls it a protest they're clearly bias too.
No.. The people who say this was a protest are bias, the people who say this was a riot are objectively factual. One might even have called it an act of domestic terrorism since the goal here was to inflict harm and spread fear for the sake of political/ideological means..
Not really. Because a protest and riots were going on at the same time. I have no issue with protests, but am not a fan of riots, and given the extensive criminal history of everyone who attacked Kyle, it is hard to accept they were there to merely voice their displeasure via peaceful means.
The events of the night in question had protesters. observers, rioters, and militia, these are all facts, how is this bias?
Carrying a gun at a rally doesn’t make you a vigilante
He was underage
@@MalcolmLittle-pw9dz you can't BUY a gun underage, doesn't mean you can't carry or own one.
@@obama-bin-thanos7484 sure racist
@@MalcolmLittle-pw9dzwhat
@@MalcolmLittle-pw9dz nice fail racist
This is the first time I actually am learning about this case because I've been avoiding it. I've seen people lose friendships over this stuff. I dont get it.
People who trust short, interspersed, and editorialized news clips think Kyle is Guilty.
People who seeked out all the first-party video evidence from the first few days of the incident, who read the Wisconsin statutes on possession of a rifle by a person under age 18, who looked up the criminal history of the 4 men who attacked him, who looked at a map of Antioch's relation to Kenosha, who had their eyes glued to the livestream of his trial...
Could not come to any other conclusion than "Not Guilty."
Good riddance
The correct verdic was given...people who dont agree arent good freinds...
First of all: if you've been "avoiding this case", it's prudent to restrain the urge to express strong opinions about it. Which is exactly what many people don't care to do. They didn't follow what's been presented in court, or anything that surfaced before the trial (and I mean real evidence, like videos, not someone's views or opinions). They stick to a narrative that was served to them by the media, celebrities, political figures, etc.
If you followed the case, you'd see:
- prosecutorial misconduct (withholding important evidence, grave constitutional violations, witness intimidation, etc.);
- death threats towards the defendant (Kyle Rittenhouse) and the judge;
- extensive criminal records and history of violent behavior of all the deceased or wounded (pedophilia, domestic abuse, OWI, firearm offences); the person referred to as "jump kick man" is also a habitual offender (his real name is Maurice Freeland and was known to the prosecution, but they withheld this information as his testimony could greatly help the defense);
- multiple threats (during the night of the event) towards KR and others by the deceased Joseph Rosenbaum (who also called people n-word - at a "racial justice protest") and other people involved, e.g. Joshua Ziminski (also a habitual offender; he was charged with arson by ADA Thomas Binger, giving him immunity from testifying in KR's case);
- jury intimidation (a man identified as James Morrison working "under the supervision of" Irene Byon of NBC tried to take photos of jury members);
and many other "interesting" things.
It's terrifying to see how easily people get manipulated and how often they willfully spread misinformation.
There are still some folks believing that KR is a white supremacist who deliberately targeted a peaceful (sic!) protest, shot and killed BLACK (sic!!!) people unprovoked. That's the stuff you can still find in mainstream media. And those who believe it aren't interested in learning anything from reliable sources like the videos from the trial (which were broadcasted live).
I'm not surprised friendships were lost because of this case. I wouldn't hesitate to sever ties with anyone who believes a politically motivated narrative and, when confronted with basic undeniable facts, chooses to ignore them because they "don't fit" said narrative. That's how lynching happens and I don't want that kind of people on my contacts list.
Leftist ideology truly is cancerous
This case was pretty much over when Grosskreautz said that Rittenhouse had lowered his rifle when he was approaching with his pistol drawn on Rittenhouse.
The case was over after the opening statements, when Richards said that Grosskreutz told the police he had lost his pistol before he reached Kyle, and that he was actually trying to save him. There was no way for him to square what he told the police and the video evidence, and he ended up getting caught in his own web.
what do you mean?
@@jialianglow What he means is thatGrosskreutz lies to the police in his police report and made himself a unreliable/untrustworthy witness.
@@3darkdescents537 also destroyed his own 10 million dollar lawsuit
Yeah. I find it weird that LegalEagle paints it like Grosskreautz may or may not have been pointing his pistol at Rittenhouse when he was shot. Grosskreautz flat out agreed while on the stand that he was pointing his gun at Rittenhouse when he was shot.
I think it's pretty obvious that the owners of the car lot were blatantly lying when they said they never asked Rittenhouse or anyone to protect their property. There's plenty of photos and footage of them hanging out with Rittenhouse and the other people that showed to protect their locations. And are we really to believe that Kyle and a bunch of other guys showed up and specifically went to Car Source properties 100% unprompted and unasked for? It's far more likely that the owners lied in court to try and protect themselves from any legal trouble for asking people with guns to protect their stuff during a riot.
Thanking them after the fact does not mean they asked them to be there. Unless you have videos, or other proof Car Source asked anyone to be there, we have to accept they didn't.
@@jfbeam There's enough evidence to suggest reasonable doubt in their testimony. Just like how they Faustian'd Dominic Black to testify against Kyle and didn't tell him that the Defense was looking for him.
The dealership people were pretty sketchy on the witness stand (you mean to tell me their inventory manager didn't really know their losses?), which made a lot of people question if they are trying to hide something to begin with. Other evidence and testimony, including testimony from a former employee, suggests they were invited or otherwise given approval.
@@jfbeam Again...are we really supposed to believe that a group of guys got together and SPECIFICALLY spread themselves out over each and every Car Source property, unprompted and uninvited?
By that same token someone could look at only a few of the most damning angles and say Kyle was also lying. You'd have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt they were lying - otherwise Kyle would be locked up without 'reasonable doubt' in play.
The prosecution was incompetent and I’m not sure how bicep could of claimed self defense when he chased after the guy trying to retreat. You know, in another world.
Bicep also admitted to evidence that Kyle didn't vaporize his extremity until Bicep pointed the gun at him.
The problem is that the situation is much clearer to us in hindsight than it was to anyone on the ground that day. If Kyle hadn't previously fired any shots that night, Gaige (bicep) for sure couldn't have claimed self-defense. But Kyle HAD fired other shots that night and had even killed someone. We know that Kyle shot because he believed his life was in imminent danger, and it probably was. However, Gaige didn't have any of that information available to him. He could absolutely argue that he thought that night that Kyle Rittenhouse was a mass shooter out to kill as many people as he could kill. Technically, the actual legal argument he probably would have been making would have been more of a defense of others argument, but that can quickly tie to a self-defense argument. He would have said that the reason he was chasing after Rittenhouse was to try to stop him from killing anyone else, and after he tried to stop him Kyle pointed the gun at him, so he felt he had no choice but to shoot in self-defense. Personally, after listening to Gaige testify I wouldn't buy that story on a PERSONAL level; however, if I was on the jury I don't think I could say that I disbelieved the story BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. While I don't personally believe the story, it certainly would be a reasonable interpretation of events that someone could believe on the night in question. As I have said elsewhere, if it comes to personal belief and trust if I went out shooting and Kyle asked to come along and asked to shoot my gun I would have zero problem with that. Based on my personal beliefs about him after watching the trial I believe he is extremely trustworthy and responsible. If Gaige asked to come along I for sure would say absolutely not. Not only would I not let him shoot my gun, I would definitely not want to be anywhere near him. I wouldn't trust him to shoot his own gun responsibly, and I wouldn't even trust him to be around me when I have my gun even if he agreed not to touch my gun and not to do anything irresponsible around me when I was shooting my gun. But self-defense laws by design are meant to lean in favor of a reasonable person doing what they think they need to do in a situation, and even though I don't believe it for a second personally I don't know that legally I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Gaige didn't reasonably believe he was subduing a mass shooter that was a risk to Gaige and other bystanders that night.
No just because you fired a shot in self defense once. Doesn’t mean it give someone else the justification to attack “in self defense” while Kyle is running away.
@@zachtalkssmack4470 If you can tell that Kyle is merely running away and especially if you know he shot in self defense that doesn’t give you the right to shoot him, but we can’t accurately attribute omniscience to people in an unfolding situation. If a person on the night hears the shot and genuinely believes Kyle is a mass murderer bent on killing a bunch of people, shooting him could be seen as an attempt to defend other potential victims. And when Kyle points his gun at you it could become an issue of self defense. With the clarity we have in hindsight it is obvious that isn’t what is happening, but you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the people on the ground couldn’t reasonably have believed that was what was happening in the chaos of the moment with limited views. My gut says it is likely that the other people knew Kyle had shot in self defense and that he was running away, but at the same time I do believe it is possible for a reasonable person on that night in the chaos to have possibly interpreted things that way. I’d need more evidence for me to say they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the other men couldn’t have reasonably concluded that that was what was going on. And there are plenty of other cases where a law-abiding citizen heroically took out a mass shooter with their fire arm, so I definitely don’t want a world where law-abiding citizens aren’t allowed to use their legal firearms to take out mass shooters in an active shooting situation.
That's not a universal rule, though. If you're in an open area and there's an aggressor with a gun, allowing them to create space is the last thing you want (assuming you don't have a gun). If you're 5 feet away from a gunman, you have a chance of defending yourself. If the gunman gets 50 feet away from you, you have no way of defending yourself.
I'm not saying that that was the situation here, given there was a second firearm in play, but in general someone with a gun retreating does not necessarily mean that they're trying to deescalate or escape from the situation.
Can you do an analysis on the lawyers in the trial and go over the most controversial/popular objections raised during the trial?
Legal fecal is the worst person to ask about law. I know crackheads that can tell you more accurate information about the injustice system.
@@Damitsall guys who do I trust? The lawyer or the youtube commenter
@@IvanGonzalez-eo5kj If by "the lawyer" you mean the youtuber acting as a political activist hiding behind his job, than trust neither.
@@IvanGonzalez-eo5kj The lawyer may have an expert opinion but the youtube commenter insists on an opinion that fits my narrative. Clearly the lawyer must be a "political activist" because above all else, I have to be right
@@Damitsall the reason I asked is because I’ve already heard what all the other lawyers have had to say about this topic. I like to listen to everybody on all sides and then form my own opinions on the matter.
Everyone who didn't attack Kyle didn't get shot that night.
Funny how that works even though he was there to start trouble according to the prosecution of
This is indeed a fact.
@@mysteryjunkie9808 I thought the people who were there to burn car lots to the ground were the ones starting trouble, but ok
@@mysteryjunkie9808 He was very much there to start trouble. A minor going to a protest they know nothing about, in a different state, with a firearm- is reckless and negligent. He’s a moron.
correction: Kyle did not cross state lines with any firearm.
Exactly. And he was from that town and it was his community.
Why watch the trial when you can get the cliffnotes from CNN and MSDNC?
@@reltius2993 only reason I can think of is to get actual information
You described Rittenhouse's testimony as self serving; what other kind of testimony would you expect?
There are a lot of bad testimony out there
That grossarm guy gave great testimony that served the defense well. "Yes, I pointed my gun at Kyle's head"
@@purplefreedom1631 When I'm having a bad day, I just watch Gross being murdered during cross examination. So many moments!
Did you have a license? Yes. Expired? .... Yes...
Did he only shot after you pointed the gun at him? Yes
Are you planning to make lots of money with the results of this trial suing Kanosha? Yes
Were you running towards Kyle to provide medical aid? Of course. Why are you withdrawing your illegal firearm in the next frame? Yes
well yeah, unless they're turning themselves in. the goal is to pitch a legal defense and keep yourself out of prison, AKA serving yourself.
Such an underrated comment. Bravo Brandon's Garage.
Yes, IF Rittenhouse chased gage with a group of friends after threatening to kill Gage, we would have to consider a self defense claim for Gage. Since Rittenhouse didn't do that and was instead trying to flee, we don't have to pretend Gage has a case there.
He's a lawyer, you missed the point were he said that even if you provoked an attack and the victim takes out a gun you now as well have the right for self defense.
@@mattv2956 Except you and the civil litigation attorney who has absolutely no experience in criminal law failed to recognize that provocation and literal attempted murder are two separate things. If Grosskreutz really believed he was in danger he wouldn't have chased Kyle Rittenhouse down while armed with a gun he was illegally carrying because he was on probation. Not to mention he was rioting and looting too. Keep that in mind in case you somehow think he had the right to be there that night.
@@lyongreene8241 yet again you missed the point even if they were commenting a crime they are still entitled to self defense and have you not read anything related to the situation or did the news spoon feed you information, we he was not looting nor rioting he was there as a medic and he was legally there with a gun. Now he is in a lawsuit against Kenosha due to their officers supporting an illegally armed milita. Not to mention the Kenosha police failed to enforce the curfew on all civilians not just protesters.
@@mattv2956 Committing a crime in this context precludes attempted murder since the case he brought up involved a man robbing a store. There is no precedence ensuring a murderer or someone attempting murder has a right to self-defense. By that logic, every instance of murder is justified so long as the victim acts in the interest of self-preservation.
Watch the video again. The idea that Rittenhouse was carrying the gun illegally was already debunked by your favorite lawyer halfway through this video, so don't come at me with that bs.
@@lyongreene8241 did I ever say he was illegally carrying a gun. All I said was him and the other goons were considered an armed illegal milita and the police did nothing
The prosecutors did more for Kyles case than his own lawyers did
It honestly seemed like both sides’ lawyers were trying to throw the case.
I died laughing when the prosecutor brought up Kyle being a Call of Duty player.
@@everythingdibs344 if he still plays it today, that might be enough to lock him up lol
@@everythingdibs344 Still amazes me that anyone is trying to blame video games for real world acts. Thought that would have ended after the moral panic of the 90s/00s.
He was a defense attorney in disguise 🥸
You said that the guy that was shot in the bicep had his hands up, when the video evidence and even his own testimony show he was pointing his own gun at Kyle before he was shot
He did put his hands up initially. That's why initially Kyle did not shoot him. He then advanced back in on Kyle later and pointed his loaded gun at Kyle's head and was shot only then.
Technically it's not wrong, but it is misleading.
@@jameshobbs9180 seems intentionally misleading, seeing as that is the story you will hear almost anywhere that wasn’t in court
He lied by omission. Gaige Grosskreutz admitted on the stand that it wasn't until he pointed his pistol at KR that KR shot him.
Yea, that's scummy.
Considering his own biases, he did a pretty good job on this one. Omitting one, granted vital, fact is pretty minor all things considered.
The thing that is really annoying to me is his continued reference to "duty to retreat" which
1: doesn't even exist there and
2: video evidence clearly shows him attempting to retreat anyway.