-- 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
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 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.
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
@@stephenwalk2186 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.
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.
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
@@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.
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
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.
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.
@@hagamapama if anybidy thinks screwdrivers aren't deadly, I'd like to remind them to read up on the Yorkshire Ripper - he was simply a doofus who hated women and managed to kill multiple with a screwdriver. Gruesome stuff.
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 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
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
The entire case was a waste of taxpayer money. It was a completely open and shut case of self-defense; Rittenhouse should never have been charged in the first place. However the state of Wisconsin did absolutely NO investigation before filing charges just two days after the incident; for obviously political reasons. Contrast with Illinois, which did an in depth investigation on whether Kyle possessed the rifle in their state (which would be a crime) and found that no, the rifle never left Wisconsin and therefore no charges were pursued.
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.
@@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.
@@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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
16.02 [Re the case of Gabby Giffoed] Legal Eagle really botched this comparison. The fact that a bystander says he was within seconds of shooting one of the people helping doesn't reflect on Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse KNEW who was chasing him and who had threatened to kill him. But Huber, Freeland, and Grosskruetz did not witness the first shooting and were acting on untrustworthy information, voices in a crowd. They were reckless with violence that night just as each of them had been in the past.
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?
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.
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.
"This case is murky at best" says the guy after showing one of the most well documented and clear cut self defense cases in recent history. your bias is showing as usual
@@Slade951 I know more than a few liberal gun owners that would take him up on that challenge and kick it square in its elite smug supercilious face and break those expensive veneers off in its face. Actual hard working liberal workers that have no use for bougie cognac sipping elitists that have no real connection to men and women that have worked long hard hours without a silver spoon in a their privileged pie holes.
@@1dirkmanchest make/save/invest some money fam. most of them didnt get there by sittin on they ass. if you work hard enough, you can become an "elite" and you probably wouldnt have those violent thoughts goin thru ya head
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 TH-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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
this video had so many double standards For LE to consider Kyles self defense, he had to have been fleeing but for everyone chasing kyle, they only had to have been threatened? It makes no sense, if Kyle has to flee for it to meet self defense, EVERYONE in this situation should
@@thereinthetrees_5626 it comes down to who is the aggressor. Kyle was never the aggressor. He was the one being attacked that night, which is why the self defense stands up. Everyone else that night provoked him to shoot, which he did only when his life was in danger. A mob chasing a man down to kill him is not self defense. Every member of the mob that chased Kyle that night should be brought up on charges for attempting murder.
LegalGrifter is skirting because his channel is anti-Trump and most of his subs are anti-Trump thus doesn't want to upset them. And you know how upset those peaceful and tolerant people get.
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
"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.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
@@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.
First guy Kyle shot was armed he had a chain. And he was chasing him down yelling ‘I’m going to kill you’ over and over. And Kyle didn’t trip. He was hit over the head and stumbled because of it
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
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 TH-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.
Huber and Grosskreutz weren't justified in their use of self defense because their lives, and the lives of others, were clearly not in immediate danger when the supposed murderer was running away from them and towards the police. If Grosskreutz were to have killed Rittenhouse and been put on trial instead, it's pretty clear he'd have been found guilty. Also, why would the case be different if there was a duty to retreat law? Rittenhouse initially ran away from everyone who he ended up shooting and only used deadly force when he was cornered in a parking lot or on the ground and just got hit twice in the head
15:29 “Reasonable minds can differ…”. This is what biased commentators say when the obvious truth is right in front of them. “All he (Rosenbaum) did was chase him and throw something at him and jump toward him”. Yeah can’t imagine why that would be perceived as a threat…. 🙄
You Wrote “All he (Rosenbaum) did was chase him and throw something at him and jump toward him”. Yeah can’t imagine why that would be perceived as a threat…. 🙄 Reply He also threatened to kill him if he caught him alone.
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
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.
One thing getting glossed over was that Grosskruetz was a convicted felon and should not have had a weapon under the law. Any action taken with the gun would have been illegal.
20:00 a jump kick might not be necessarily deadly but its definitely not non lethal. Neither is hitting someone in the head neck area with a skate board. And in this situation there where people planning to use deadly force against him and it still didn't mean he killed them. If you are on the ground at a protest and the protesters see you as a threat or enemy. You are most definitely in danger of death or grave bodily harm.
One could argue that in a hostile mob any attack could be seen as deadly due to the dangers of being incapacitated around others who would do you harm.
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.
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.
Hey, remember when that smug, pompous Binger aimed a rifle at the jury with his finger on the trigger? Lets not forget. As of this comment he is still a DA in Kenosha, despite his incompetence.
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.
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.
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
Kyles gun did not cross state lines, it was stored in Wi, and he is frequently in Kenosha and WAS in kenosha BEFORE the riots began and while there that’s when they broke out, thus Kyle didn’t cross state lines, regardless, crossing state lines is not a crime, and to its so is a limitation of liberty amongst Americans.
@@DSan-kl2yc his permit was "expired", because he wasn't able to renew it due to the fact that he had been charged with a felony and he was out on bail at the time. The felony charges were later dropped by the state prosecutors 6 days before the Rittenhouse case went to trial in exchange for his testimony. The felony charges ironically involved him drunkenly brandishing a gun while he was still not allowed to possess firearms due to a previous felony conviction for burglary (that felony was expunged in early 2020, but he still couldn't renew his CCW license due to the pending felony charges.)
Kyle wasn't legally able to possess a firearm either was he? He was under age is understand correctly. I think LE made a good point at the end there, I think many reasonable people can believe that those killed and injured by Kyle were acting in self defence and could have been found not guilty if this went down different. It's so strange to see people in the comments bend over backwards to make it seem like a backpack or a skateboard was deadly force
I love "vigilantism is bad" as a note. I only wish the people still calling for Kyle to be hung after his trial exonerated him would take those notes seriously.
*Leftists in 2020:* "We don't need the cops. Defund the police! Abolish the police! We can police ourselves! Community policing is what we want!" *Leftists in 2023:* "Vigilantism is bad! Why did he get involved? Just call the cops. A choke hold is lethal force! Stop trying to be a hero; just let the homeless person attack and threaten people! It's none of your business!"
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.
@@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
You refer to the incident as having taken place at a protest. It appears to me that the video evidence and witness testimony all point to it having taken place at a riot. Is there any sort of conflation, from a legal perspective, between the words "riot" and "protest"? Can you please clarify this? Thank you.
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.
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.
15:16 he stopped pointed the gun at him and he kept coming. Kyle didn't shot anyone that wasn't within 2 meters and and hadn't tried or succeeded to engage in physical violence. And a man is barley unarmed if he has a crowd of angry protesters with him. Now I don't know if kyle provoked the attack but hearing about the mental state of the first person shot it feels unlikely that Kyle was somehow provocative enough to make an average person charge an armed man.
![Yoshi Rinrada - 'มาทำไม' [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/r41xbfRLkLs/mqdefault.jpg)
-- 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
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 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..
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.
@@stephenwalk2186 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 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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
@@hagamapama if anybidy thinks screwdrivers aren't deadly, I'd like to remind them to read up on the Yorkshire Ripper - he was simply a doofus who hated women and managed to kill multiple with a screwdriver. Gruesome stuff.
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.
TH-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.
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
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 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.
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?
20:02 Huber struck Rittenhouse’s head with his skateboard. Does intent not matter in this case?
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.
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.
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.
The entire case was a waste of taxpayer money. It was a completely open and shut case of self-defense; Rittenhouse should never have been charged in the first place. However the state of Wisconsin did absolutely NO investigation before filing charges just two days after the incident; for obviously political reasons.
Contrast with Illinois, which did an in depth investigation on whether Kyle possessed the rifle in their state (which would be a crime) and found that no, the rifle never left Wisconsin and therefore no charges were pursued.
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.
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 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?
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
@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
That's always the case for you?
16.02 [Re the case of Gabby Giffoed]
Legal Eagle really botched this comparison. The fact that a bystander says he was within seconds of shooting one of the people helping doesn't reflect on Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse KNEW who was chasing him and who had threatened to kill him. But Huber, Freeland, and Grosskruetz did not witness the first shooting and were acting on untrustworthy information, voices in a crowd. They were reckless with violence that night just as each of them had been in the past.
You didn’t mention Grosskeutz had his Glock out when he was in front of Rittenhouse???
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.
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.
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 🤦🏻♀️🙄
"This case is murky at best" says the guy after showing one of the most well documented and clear cut self defense cases in recent history. your bias is showing as usual
Well said. Legal Eagle blew this one.
LegalGrifter has over 5mil subscribers somehow and describes this case as "murky".
“Everybody takes a beating sometimes, right?” - James Kraus, Kenosha County ADA office, 11/15/21
Except for comrade LE, he will have his armed guards put anyone down that threatens to beat his metrosexual ass.
@@1dirkmanchest Yeah he wouldn't allow someone to "non lethally" as he claims kick him in the head.
@@Slade951 I know more than a few liberal gun owners that would take him up on that challenge and kick it square in its elite smug supercilious face and break those expensive veneers off in its face.
Actual hard working liberal workers that have no use for bougie cognac sipping elitists that have no real connection to men and women that have worked long hard hours without a silver spoon in a their privileged pie holes.
@@1dirkmanchest make/save/invest some money fam. most of them didnt get there by sittin on they ass. if you work hard enough, you can become an "elite" and you probably wouldnt have those violent thoughts goin thru ya head
This should be quoted in court by every person in Kenosha accused of domestic violence.
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 TH-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.
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 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.
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 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
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.
You should start by calling it a riot , not a protest.
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?
"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.
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.
Non deadly force?
My friend, you can easily kill someone with a skate board. Or a kick.
Yea, a lot of people die from fist fights, especially when they fall and the back of the head hits a hard surface, like pavement
He means when certain people do it it's not deadly. He's a hack.
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.
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.
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.
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
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....
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
"Why did the jury conclude that he was not guilty?"
Because he wasn't guilty.
So jump kicking or striking somebody in the face is not deadly force? Are you serious?
this video had so many double standards
For LE to consider Kyles self defense, he had to have been fleeing
but for everyone chasing kyle, they only had to have been threatened? It makes no sense, if Kyle has to flee for it to meet self defense, EVERYONE in this situation should
@@thereinthetrees_5626 it comes down to who is the aggressor. Kyle was never the aggressor. He was the one being attacked that night, which is why the self defense stands up. Everyone else that night provoked him to shoot, which he did only when his life was in danger.
A mob chasing a man down to kill him is not self defense. Every member of the mob that chased Kyle that night should be brought up on charges for attempting murder.
LegalGrifter is skirting because his channel is anti-Trump and most of his subs are anti-Trump thus doesn't want to upset them. And you know how upset those peaceful and tolerant people get.
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?!
"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.
Well it's fortunate you weren't a juror, because you're exceptionally biased.
Go on
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.
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 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?
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
Trying to steal gun chasing him, chased down hit with a skateboard, literally admitted to pointing a gun at him…..that’s self defense
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 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
First guy Kyle shot was armed he had a chain. And he was chasing him down yelling ‘I’m going to kill you’ over and over. And Kyle didn’t trip. He was hit over the head and stumbled because of it
sources? This is the first time I've heard this.
@@bobvance- the video they showed at the trial
This guy definitely didn't watch the trial either lol
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
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 TH-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.
Huber and Grosskreutz weren't justified in their use of self defense because their lives, and the lives of others, were clearly not in immediate danger when the supposed murderer was running away from them and towards the police. If Grosskreutz were to have killed Rittenhouse and been put on trial instead, it's pretty clear he'd have been found guilty.
Also, why would the case be different if there was a duty to retreat law? Rittenhouse initially ran away from everyone who he ended up shooting and only used deadly force when he was cornered in a parking lot or on the ground and just got hit twice in the head
You are correct. This has nothing to do with the duty to retreat or the castle doctrine because Kyle did retreat at every oppoortunity.
15:29 “Reasonable minds can differ…”. This is what biased commentators say when the obvious truth is right in front of them. “All he (Rosenbaum) did was chase him and throw something at him and jump toward him”. Yeah can’t imagine why that would be perceived as a threat…. 🙄
You Wrote
“All he (Rosenbaum) did was chase him and throw something at him and jump toward him”. Yeah can’t imagine why that would be perceived as a threat…. 🙄
Reply
He also threatened to kill him if he caught him alone.
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
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.
One thing getting glossed over was that Grosskruetz was a convicted felon and should not have had a weapon under the law. Any action taken with the gun would have been illegal.
20:00 a jump kick might not be necessarily deadly but its definitely not non lethal. Neither is hitting someone in the head neck area with a skate board. And in this situation there where people planning to use deadly force against him and it still didn't mean he killed them. If you are on the ground at a protest and the protesters see you as a threat or enemy. You are most definitely in danger of death or grave bodily harm.
Their rioters. Calling them protestors is an insult to the word protest
A skateboard can definitely be used as a deadly weapon.
@@frankhorriganfromfallout2 whatever you call them. the other people there.
One could argue that in a hostile mob any attack could be seen as deadly due to the dangers of being incapacitated around others who would do you harm.
@@zedalbaMob Mentality is an interesting/weird thing for sure.
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.
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.
Hey, remember when that smug, pompous Binger aimed a rifle at the jury with his finger on the trigger?
Lets not forget. As of this comment he is still a DA in Kenosha, despite his incompetence.
He didn't aim the rifle at the jury. He aimed it across the room and from some angles you could see why people thought that.
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.
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.
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.
Kyles gun did not cross state lines, it was stored in Wi, and he is frequently in Kenosha and WAS in kenosha BEFORE the riots began and while there that’s when they broke out, thus Kyle didn’t cross state lines, regardless, crossing state lines is not a crime, and to its so is a limitation of liberty amongst Americans.
Also none of the guys shot are/were victims, cause they all committed crimes against Rittenhouse,
This is why you don't get a non practicing business lawyer trying to explain a murder trial. He got so many legal take wrong about self defense.
5 million subscribers somehow.
21:40 Gaige Grosskreutz was a felon at the time of the protest and therefore not legally able to posess a firearm.
He wasn't a felon.
Whether he could have had one is murkier but he did have a permit so it seems it was allowed.
Also that has nothing to do with anything since he didn't shoot anybody. And Kyle wouldn't know.
@@DSan-kl2yc his firearm license had expired a while ago and he had decided not to renew so I his firearm was illegal.
@@DSan-kl2yc his permit was "expired", because he wasn't able to renew it due to the fact that he had been charged with a felony and he was out on bail at the time. The felony charges were later dropped by the state prosecutors 6 days before the Rittenhouse case went to trial in exchange for his testimony.
The felony charges ironically involved him drunkenly brandishing a gun while he was still not allowed to possess firearms due to a previous felony conviction for burglary (that felony was expunged in early 2020, but he still couldn't renew his CCW license due to the pending felony charges.)
Kyle wasn't legally able to possess a firearm either was he? He was under age is understand correctly. I think LE made a good point at the end there, I think many reasonable people can believe that those killed and injured by Kyle were acting in self defence and could have been found not guilty if this went down different. It's so strange to see people in the comments bend over backwards to make it seem like a backpack or a skateboard was deadly force
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...
I love "vigilantism is bad" as a note. I only wish the people still calling for Kyle to be hung after his trial exonerated him would take those notes seriously.
*Leftists in 2020:* "We don't need the cops. Defund the police! Abolish the police! We can police ourselves! Community policing is what we want!"
*Leftists in 2023:* "Vigilantism is bad! Why did he get involved? Just call the cops. A choke hold is lethal force! Stop trying to be a hero; just let the homeless person attack and threaten people! It's none of your business!"
Helping people defend their businesses from being looted or burned = bad.... burning down building and loot = good "peaceful protests "
@@Kosmisch1987 Mostly peaceful protests even though buidlings are being looted, cars set on fire and police officers murdered
@@mrsninis_0477 depends whose doing the actions. Non white = bad, white = good
@@hesky10 Except Kyle Rittenhouse shoot all 3 white people in self defense.
Legal Eagle, biggest winner of TH-cam removing dislikes
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".
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.
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.
You refer to the incident as having taken place at a protest. It appears to me that the video evidence and witness testimony all point to it having taken place at a riot. Is there any sort of conflation, from a legal perspective, between the words "riot" and "protest"? Can you please clarify this? Thank you.
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.
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
15:16 he stopped pointed the gun at him and he kept coming. Kyle didn't shot anyone that wasn't within 2 meters and and hadn't tried or succeeded to engage in physical violence. And a man is barley unarmed if he has a crowd of angry protesters with him. Now I don't know if kyle provoked the attack but hearing about the mental state of the first person shot it feels unlikely that Kyle was somehow provocative enough to make an average person charge an armed man.