35 Burst results for "Rittenhouse"
Dinesh D'Souza: Liberals Will Try Excuses About Election Fraud Videos
"This is amazing to me And that so many people in litigation they couldn't even get courts to hear the cases that they were trying to bring As if you have to prove the case before you can even have the court trial It's an amazing thing how the whole system shut down Is it not It's absolutely amazing Now I do think that we learn from the rittenhouse case didn't we that the kids life was saved by the video I mean I would listen to people testify all those guys weren't chasing rittenhouse They were just running in the same direction but then when you look at the video they're like nah they were actually chasing him And the same thing here because you'll get all kinds of clever liberal explanations like well maybe these organizations just went door to door and collected honest votes And maybe they were delivered in the wrong way but no once you actually watch this operation with your own eyes you'll see a guy in a hoodie He parks in the middle of the street at three 27 a.m. he comes running up to the Dropbox He looks at the left looks at the right He's wearing gloves Why gloves Because he doesn't want to leave his fingerprints on the ballots because it was an arrest in Arizona in which vote these ballot stuffers were busted And that's because they left fingerprints on the ballots So the moment that happens you start seeing the mules now wearing gloves And they also by the way take photos Now they don't take photos of themselves It's not a selfie like I voted They're taking photos of them of themselves stuffing the ballot box And the reason for it is that that's how they get paid They have to prove that they actually were there but they actually dumped the ballots And so this is a coordinated operation This could not have developed somehow simulate a spontaneously This is organized fraud conducted by the left involving left wing organizations hiring and key for types that's actually what the population of the mules is made of and funded by very powerful forces in the Democratic Party
Ed Rensi: We're Prosperous Because of Free Markets, Free Enterprise
"Well Bernie Marcus whose counter of Home Depot one of the founders a whole new partner wonderful man I mean real citizen great benefactor to our society gives everybody an opportunity And he asked me a long time ago to join job creators network where we could elevate young minorities to understand what the value of work is and to teach them how to go to work how to set an alarm clock how to get to work on time how to study learn grow and teach them what the paycheck look like and the value of work and that their hard work could be rewarded to make it grow and develop Jobs creators network was the foundation of this and I've been working with them on and off since the foundation And then just recently you know they created a coalition of job creators network the second vote advisers in the free enterprise project to talk about the free enterprise system in the United States and how it's deteriorating What can we do about it How can we get people to understand that we're prosperous because we have free markets free enterprise and all of a sudden we've got all this ever since the BLM and the deployed matter all horrible things and there's no question about that But now we've gone off the rails This social engineering and social policy the rittenhouse thing in Kenosha Wisconsin We focus on the minority activity and you know you're a scholar the federalist papers and the discussion and they were afraid of the tyranny of the minority And we have a minority of people in this country today that have big voices for whatever reason I don't quite understand it all They're shaping the policy of this country with an adverse effect on corporations and the shareholders in those corporations
Getting to Know the Real Kyle Rittenhouse
"David and I were talking about the interview I did with Kyle rittenhouse yesterday and we were reflecting about how different the real Kyle rittenhouse is from the Kyle rittenhouse that was you could almost say manufactured by the left. And how different Kyle rittenhouse's story is. From the utterly deceitful narrative that was created around him in the aftermath of BLM and antifa riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin. It's kind of funny. I was reading Kyle rittenhouse's post on social media. I messaged him and I go, hey, you know, you should come on our podcast. And he agreed to do it. But the woman who kind of handles handles Kyle, you know, basically contacted us and said, hey, listen, you know, Kyle's not that political, so don't ask him about the Ukraine or political issues, because Kyle's just a kid. Which I kind of knew, but I thought it was funny that Kyle has been doing a couple of interviews and some of these hosts have been like, oh, what's your position on the landscape? And when you saw Kyle out there, you realize why that's not the right way to talk to Kyle rittenhouse. This is a kid a very modest kid who's trying to live a normal life. I mean, I was kind of touched by how he said, yeah, I tried to drop out of high school. My mom kind of needed me at home. So sad. You know, it was a lower middle class white kid who is trying to find his way in the world.
Rep. Matt Gaetz: The Biden Admin Gaslit the Russian Invasion
"But we are witnessing now in Europe, things we thought only our parents and grandparents would ever see and would never happen again. Tanks rolling on the streets of a free, free nation. Matt, your response to the last 36 hours. This never would have happened under president Trump. Bingo. I know that. The Biden administration gas lit this invasion by being so precise about what they would and wouldn't protect. What you understand is a strategist, what Donald Trump understood as a real estate developer is that you never take anything off the table, you never say anything's too certain. You never tell what you're not going to. Exactly. Exactly. Because one thing we know about Vladimir Putin is he will engage right up until the point where he would face kinetic conflict with the United States. He knows he would not survive that. So he's always probing for that threshold right below kinetic conflict. And Jake Sullivan, your favorite Russia host truther. Yes. Came in laid out in Technicolor. What they would and would not do, it showed their whole hand to Putin, Putin played the better hand, unfortunately, than the west, and now, you know, we see something that I think is tragic that will result in a lot of human suffering, but I also fundamentally think this is Europe's problem more than it is the United States
Rep. Matt Gaetz: The Real State of the Union Under Biden Is Exhaustion
"The job you should have done all along. Matt, you're talking directly live to millions of people from places as troubled as California to New York, not just Florida, not just Georgia. I want you to address them directly. People who listen to the show watch newsmax like breitbart, but aren't engaged. Please talk to them directly. What is their role? We know that there are great Americans that live in all of America's states. Even the blue ones. All of America cities, even the ones Democrats have been in control of and have been driving to failure and those people deserve fighters as well because we are one country. We rise and fall together and it's my expectation that we're going to ignite that spirit of patriotism that desire for freedom all over this country places we may be never have seen it before. We've got Joe Biden's State of the Union. Yes. But we know what the real state of our union is exhausted by the state of failure that Joe Biden has put us into. And so what I would say to folks who are activists, get another skill, become more capable. And out of your confidence. Yeah, and if you're just watching hoping that somebody else is going to come and rescue you from this malaise,
Rep. Matt Gaetz: CPAC Is Realigning What Conservatism Means
Caller: We Need More People Standing up Against Media Like Rittenhouse
"I obviously support Kyle rittenhouse as well. We need more young men and more senior men to start standing up to issues like this. Make them pay for their mistakes. And I, you know, I wouldn't be disregarding him with regards to people behind him. That's life. There's always going to be nefarious people looking to take advantage of situations. That shouldn't keep you from doing anything. Shouldn't keep you from doing the right thing. I get it. I really do, Robert, I think I appreciate your point very much.
Kyle Rittenhouse Launches Media Accountability Project
"And then of course, during the summer of love, during the George Floyd riots, we saw a young man with a weapon, defend his life, and he shot and killed two people. Kyle rittenhouse. Did you see him last night on Tucker Carlson? I was really uncomfortable. This is a young man. This is a kid. And there he is on television. It was a very awkward interview to say the least. And I've been thinking a lot about Kyle and his new media accountability project. Here was Kyle last night with Tucker on Fox News. Me and my team have decided to launch the media accountability project as a tool to help fundraise and hold the media accountable for the lies they said and deal with them in court. Interesting. And what about the people who called you groundlessly a white supremacist, which makes it pretty hard to get a job for the rest of your life if you're a white supremacist. Will you be responding to them? Absolutely. We are going to hold everybody who's lied about me accountable. Such as everybody who's lied, called me a white supremacist. Yeah. They're all going to be held accountable and we're going to handle them in a courtroom.
Here’s How Many Billions Mark Zuckerberg Lost in the Stock Market in One Day
"Facebook is terrible. Recently, I see that they removed the page promoting the freedom convoy by the truckers. And they have tried to block exposure of the whole trucker resistance to forced vaccine mandates. I've had my own miseries with Facebook I'm currently demonetized. I don't care about that so much, but I'm also restricted, which means they are people who used to get my page. They would come in their feed and now they restrict my distribution. It's all based upon a completely bogus. I posted innocuous clip about Kyle rittenhouse. They said, oh, by posting this clip, you're promoting a dangerous individual, then they themselves decided after a rittenhouse was exonerated that he's not dangerous, but since my post was in the period where he was deemed dangerous, they refused to take him down. This is the Shia arbitrariness. She unreasonableness of Facebook, which also now goes by the idiotic name meta. Now, generally, I like to see the economy doing well. I like to see the stock market doing well, but the stock market took a kind of hit, and Facebook was leading the downward drop. And the blow to Facebook, I'm looking here at report from CNN, wipes out $31 billion of Mark Zuckerberg's personal wealth. Isn't that great? It's awesome. In fact, it's threatening to kick Zuckerberg out of the top ten richest men in the world. He's currently number ten. He dropped like four places. And Facebook itself saw a sharp decline one day market value drop. In fact, it's apparently a 20% drop the biggest single day drop for any U.S. company ever.
Why 'Angry White Man' Should Not Be Your Biggest Fear
"When I did a video about that writer for the for CNN, he happened to be a black guy from Baltimore. And he said that the thing he fears most is an angry white man. This is during the time of the trial of Cal rittenhouse. That's a thank he's most afraid of and angry white man. So did a video about it. And I put in the task with, you know, that strange thing known as facts. And there was a comment below it. In the comment was well, almost all serial killers are white. Why is it people keep saying that? Do you remember when those two men were murdering people? Around Washington, D.C.? Malvo, John Muhammad. With his name? And the other younger guy? Two black people mowing down people. Outside of New York, outside of Washington D.C., turns out the police had stopped them several times and let them go because they were looking for what the FBI profiler said was likely to be a white man.
Man who bought gun for Kyle Rittenhouse pleads no contest
"The the man man who who purchased purchased an an A. A. R. R. fifteen fifteen style style rifle rifle for for Kyle Kyle Rittenhouse Rittenhouse pleaded pleaded no no contest contest today today to to a a reduced reduced charge charge of of contributing contributing to to the the delinquency delinquency of of a a minor minor the the plea plea deal deal with with dominate dominate black black was was explained explained in in court court by by Kenosha Kenosha county county circuit circuit judge judge Bruce Bruce Schrader Schrader resolution resolution that that we we reached reached in in this this case case involves involves the the issuance issuance of of a a county county ordinance ordinance citation citation for for contributing contributing to to the the delinquency delinquency of of a a child child that that was was because because Kyle Kyle Rittenhouse Rittenhouse was was seventeen seventeen when when black black got got the the gun gun for for him him Mr Mr in in house house was was legally legally considered considered a a child child at at the the time time of of the the purchase purchase of of this this firearm firearm and and therefore therefore Mr Mr black black would would be be liable liable for for violating violating that that county county ordinance ordinance we we have have agreed agreed to to a a fine fine of of two two thousand thousand dollars dollars Rittenhouse Rittenhouse used used a a rifle rifle to to shoot shoot three three people people killing killing two two during during a a night night of of protest protest in in Kenosha Kenosha in in twenty twenty twenty twenty over over the the shooting shooting of of Jacob Jacob lake lake a a jury jury acquitted acquitted Rittenhouse Rittenhouse of of homicide homicide and and other other charges charges in in November November I I Shelley Shelley Adler Adler
Charlie Chats With Kyle Rittenhouse
The Importance of Citizen Journalism in the Kyle Rittenhouse Trial
"Elijah talk about the importance of citizen journalism when it came to what happened in Kenosha that one night. Well, the importance is in the fact that all of you guys here have a phone in your hand. And while the media had billions of dollars of funding, they couldn't do what a millennial could do or Gen Z with a phone in their hand. My screen is cracked. I have a fat Italian guy shirtless on the front screen my friend eating chicken strips in Las Vegas, using that phone. That device that communist device or the company that hates us and taking it out there and doing what the media won't do, which is to risk your life because you have to take a risk to get value and you have to just be there because the media will never be in the right place at the right time because they're intentionally not telling the whole story. They're liars, they're sick, they're demented, but you are the truth tellers. And that's why independent media is so important. It's because we're the only ones still willing to tell the truth and that's what it takes.
Prosecutors Have Nothing on Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
"So fantastic piece by Caroline like Caroline glick is a brilliant person born in America She's an Israeli Author senior columnist Israel hayom But she's writing here an opinion in the American newsweek website She says the corruption trial of former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Jerusalem district court has been ongoing for the past two months Things are not going well for the prosecutors Israel's state prosecution submitted a list of 333 witnesses It front loaded its best ones so far 8 have taken a stand and all of them have obliterated the prosecution's case Longtime Israeli juris and former prosecutors attest that this is the worst presentation of evidence they have ever seen They ought to see the car rittenhouse case But nonetheless For the past three years has really attorney general avatar manda built Mandelbrot Manda bullet And it sounds better in real German I don't you know And his colleagues built their case for indicting Netanyahu a long serving successful and popular prime minister By claiming their star witnesses had given them proof that Netanyahu's corrupt and dangerous Though a legal selective leaks from investigation rooms and prime time press conferences the state prosecution insisted that the witnesses had given them incontrovertible evidence that Netanyahu received a bribe in the form of positive coverage from a news website Manga belt claimed that in exchange for the bribe of positive coverage Netanyahu compelled regulators to provide the owner of the website with a sweetheart deal worth hundreds of millions of dollars Well well but over the past two months as one allegedly star witness after another took the stand each rejected manda belts
Kyle Rittenhouse Verdict: It Comes Down to Blind Justice
"I think most people who aren't insane understand that our culture and country is going insane. Now, the good news is that most people see that. And I want to be one of those voices to let you know most of us see that. Most of us see that when ideology comes into trials when it comes into who we prosecute how we prosecute everybody should know that is as un American as it gets. You might as well put a bullet in the head of lady liberty, it's game over. So the idea that these trials that these issues have become. I guess captive to ideology, that's against everything we believe in as a nation. So when people start saying, it's no different than the OJ trial. We had this kind of divided thing where we said black people seem to be excited that he and I thought to myself in America folks, it's one thing to acknowledge we have differences. But at the end of the day, we should care about blind justice. And so I don't care if you hate Kyle rittenhouse or love Kyle rittenhouse, all we needed to care about was what were the facts. And the fact that he was able to be exonerated tells us something really positive because I think if you do not have fair trials where you know that people are going to get a fair trial and that the jury is going to be able to do their job if you're in a jury and you're worried about the mob or about people. You better get off that jury or move to another country because we have no use for people who can't do their job, whether you're an elected official or whether you're on a jury in America, if you can't do your job, if you're worried about repercussions, get out. We can't use you. So the idea that the jury did their job with all this pressure, I'm just, I thank God. I think it's a hopeful
Jussie Smollett Found Guilty of Staging Fake Hate Crime
"The jury in Chicago has just rendered a verdict of guilty on all but one of the 6 counts against Jussie Smollett. This was a jury I read that's composed of 11 white and one portion of color, ironically the same jury composition of the Kyle rittenhouse jury, and of the jury of the three men. Who were on trial for killing. Amen Arbery. All three jurors apparently had one person of color. 11. Whites. Those two juries were deemed to be problematic by many people on the left. If you watch CNN and MSNBC, which I watched, you don't have to. But nobody said squad about the composition of this jury. Poor qua. Everybody knew that small it was lying. I'm surprised it wasn't a laugh track. I would have loved for this one to have been televised. Found guilty of count one, making a fourth please report that he was a victim of a hate crime to officer Muhammad begg. Count number two, guilty, making a false police report. He was a victim of battery, to beg, count three guilty, making a false police report, he was a victim of a hate crime to detective Kimberly Murray. Count four guilty of making a false police report, he was a victim of a battery to attempt to detective kimberley Murray. Count 5 guilty of making a false police report, he was a victim of a battery to detective kimberley, Murray. He was acquitted on one count of felony disorderly conduct related to making a false police report. He was a victim of an aggravated battery detective Robert
Kyle Rittenhouse Didn't Expect Judge Schroeder to Declare a Mistrial
"Do you think though Kyle that the prosecution was trying to throw the trial? Or the case? It's my belief and I'm probably right now because we did win the case. That he knew it wasn't going so good for them, so he wanted a mistrial. That's why we filed a motion for a mistrial with prejudice. I mean, they completely had it wrong. The third set of facts they were on in the middle of a trial. They just kept changing their fact pattern. So were there any points in the trial where you thought that judge Schrader was going to make that ruling and would declare a mistrial? Were there any specific points where you think that it got to that sort of critical mass? A lot of people's beliefs are different from mine, even on my team. I didn't think he was ever going to leave this out of the hands of the jury. I don't think he wanted that wanted to be that guy that took it out of the hands of the jury. So I didn't think you would grant that until the jury made a
Kyle Rittenhouse Grew up Only Wanting to Help People
"And you always just wanted to try to help people. That is correct. While growing up, my mom was a single mother working as a CNA at a nursing home helping old people and inspired me to start helping people wanting to go to nursing school, becoming a lifeguard becoming a firefighter EMT cadet and a police explorer. You grew up in Antioch? I did. I grew up in Antioch, Illinois. Well, I lived in Lake villa for a couple years. I actually moved around a lot but the last place I was living was Antioch, Illinois. Growing up, what did you want to be when you got older? Growing up, I wanted to be a police officer to be able to help people and help people when they're having bad days because cops see people on their worst days.
"rittenhouse" Discussed on The Doug Collins Podcast
"With that gun? Okay, different topic, different conversation, but at the end of the day, this trial did not, in case did not turn on whether Kyle rittenhouse, you know, the gun or not is a different aspect. He had the gun under the law. In fact, one of the counts that was thrown out, dealing with his having the gun was thrown out. You know, the issue was self defense. The issue in arbor case was did they act properly and believing that they had a citizen's arrest claim or self defense when they tried to claim that they felt threatened by them on Aubrey and shot him. Here's what happened. One case, self defense. The other case, prosecution, showed that it was not, at the end of the day, both cases, I think, go to show us that when we let our system work, we give the resources it need to to our prosecutors, the resources needed to our defense attorneys, and then we have a case in which a judge and a jury are allowed to try these cases. Then we actually see in what may be strange too many. We see a case that turned on very similar defenses, decided in very different ways. And for those who believe there's just systemic racism across the board that there's no way that some could get a fair trial, I think this week, at least in my hope this week hope to begin to put that to bed in our legal system. But you know what? No matter what goes on in legal system and no matter how many changes in trials come and there's going to be many that we'll talk about over time. And there's intricacy such as self defense and protecting my house and protecting my counsel and all these legal things that we're going to hear from here on out in court cases that people agree or disagree with the high profile cases. You know, there's one thing that you always need. One of the things that I think Kyle rittenhouse in those prosecutors all showing, especially in the written House case, it showed defense attorneys who actually had understood how to present a case how to do it how to present the argument and how to make the case to show that their client Kyle rittenhouse was not guilty. That's what attorneys do. That's what lawyers do. But you know something if you're dealing with your finances, you're dealing with your investments in your retirement accounts. You need somebody who can be a navigator for you. Somebody who's.
"rittenhouse" Discussed on The Doug Collins Podcast
"Just gonna jump right into it today. And you know, on the show, we go through a lot of different things, but today I want to take a little bit of time and I want to go in depth on some issues that we've been looking at. In fact, I'm on some layout. We're gonna start off with what I call a tail of two trials. And really this week for those who have watched the judicial system who are part of the judicial system, you know, like myself, I'm an attorney, I've been a defense attorney, I've prosecuted. I've been on Florida both sides. This has been one of those weeks in which just looking back over it from the rittenhouse verdict to the Aubrey case here in Georgia. It gives us an opportunity to dive into some issues with legality if you would, some legal issues, but also talks about Hawaii I still believe that this country has the best judicial system we can. And if it's not blind if justice is not actually have the blindfold in his blind, then we're indefinite trouble. We're gonna start off with that. We will also deal with crime in America today. We can't get away from this. Some shocking statistics that have come out just in the last few days about the number of murders a number in some of our bigger cities and also these issues of the looting and vandalism things that we're seeing in California. We're seeing just a continued rise. We're going to go in depth with that today. We're also then going to deal with Biden Harris. I never thought that there could probably be a more gaff prone president than Joe Biden. I mean, he's done all his career. He's done it all his, you know, basically his life. And there's just normal. But Harris is running a close second. We're going to talk about that because right now, I've talked to some of my democratic friends and they are, you know, we've talked about here on the show about the issue they're willing to give up position in power for some things, but some of them are not willingly give it up like they feel like they're doing under this administration. They will probably get into a lightning round doing some issues just again economics and topics I want to do. And today we are back. It is another I'm done with you segment. So let's just Ian. Tale of two trials. This week, it really is something amazing that you have to so high profile cases that went to the verdicts went to the jury's juries and my opinion got it right in both counts. Now, if you were to listen to the left, you will think that the written house verdict was rigged, it was bad, it was wrong. Why? Because they had a preconceived notion going in, starting all the way at the top with president Joe Biden on this idea that Kyle rittenhouse was a racist. He was a white supremacist. He was the part of the problem. You know, I carried he cared a gun to find people at a peaceful protest in rally. Folks, let me just, we're going to get into the case here in a minute and I'm going to download some of the facts here. We're not going to overburden you. I want to keep it to a level where as you're going through this Thanksgiving weekend and I hope everybody's had a great Thanksgiving time and as you go into the holidays when you're going to see a lot more friends and family, when you can honestly talk about these cases, I want you to see the why. I want you to understand these are the things that are going on behind the scenes in these cases. Hopefully to educate and understand. Now, one, the left has no desire to educate. The last time no desire, they had a predetermined outcome on Kyle rittenhouse. In fact, right now, the only thing that I see the left doing is adding more defamation cases to when Kyle and his attorneys decide who to go after. I mean, when you, after the verdict, steal, have people going, you know, after him and making false statements about the trial, false statements about him. That is a concern, and it also shows that the left only seems to like justice when it ends up in what they believe justice is. A la trial number two that we're gonna talk about. The amount arbor case down in South Georgia on the coast and rosal gear. This was the case in which I'm on Arby was shot and killed by the man who chased him as he came out of jogging down the street. We'll get into a little bit more of that, but the thing that I want to say that ties these together. And I frankly not heard this in a lot of commentating so commentary owned these cases. So I want to start tying them together a little bit. And the reason I want to tie them together is you begin to see our Jewish prudence at work. You began to see how cases come together, how trials come together and how at the end of the day as much as we like to watch Law & Order as much as we like to watch all of the crime shows. These cases are not solved in 45 minutes. These cases are not tried in 45 minutes to an hour on TV. They're tried in a real courtroom with rural people with real concerns with real needs. And you also have the element of human the human element in there. You have prosecutors, some who do their job well, some who don't do their job well, we saw that also in this these trials is we went along and in my opinion, you saw, I think what you saw in the bigger case here was you had a prosecution in Georgia and the monarchies who understood what they were up against and they laid out a very detailed account of what happened. They laid out a very detailed account of why they believed that the arbor case should go the way it does in these gentlemen should have been found all three by the way found guilty of murder. As we go forward, this is something that needs to be looked at when you look at a case and how it's prosecuted. I'll talk a little bit more about prosecution and in some issues we have a crime right now in America. But this is these two cases give a class example. The other issue is the prosecution the written House case. I believe think that they thought they had it one going in. I thought about it a lot and I wondered, why would you have so many issues in the presentation of your case? Why would you have had so many problems at saving a lot from people watching the case to not think that you just could come in? Owls I phone it in, but you come in and you put on a case that really should have frankly in my opinion been stopped midway through when you had one of the when you had one of the victims in the case get up on the stand and say that Kyle rittenhouse did not shoot at them until he actually pulled a gun on car. There's no other way to define that except self defense. And the prosecution was the one who led this witness to that testimony. So again, a lot of going on with the trial and you can get into the details you can get in the specifics. What I want to focus on is something that I believe has been missing in this discussion. And the discussion is this. In these two trials, it center stage was a age old timeless almost doctrine of self defense. In other words, the affirmative defense of self defense. My affirmative defense, what I mean is that you're saying, I am not culpable or guilty of the actions that I did to the other person why because I felt my life was in danger and I had acted in accordance with that fear of my life being in danger. That's the simplest way I know how to put it. And that is this doctrine that has been around for hundreds of years. If you were to listen unfortunately to the left in the last little bit, you would have thought that this doctor was a made up doctrine that just come from nowhere and that the minute that Kyle rittenhouse showed up with his rifle that he should have been found guilty. And the reality is, is it self defense and Kyle's case was that he was involved with these individuals who attacked him, one with a skateboard was beaten if you saw pictures of Kyle. He was injured in a scene as was going on that night in that area with the looting and the riding and the police had been pulled back. Everything that was going on there, the incident occurred. And rittenhouse feeling for feeling his life was in jeopardy. Fired, killing two and injuring another one. Again, that was his defense. He said, I was fearful of my life. I took actions to protect my life, thus the defense of self defense. All right, in the discussion that I want to have it as we continue this discussion. You've got to understand that in the two.
"rittenhouse" Discussed on Skimm This
"All caught up on the dates you miss, but you'll also get the wider context. Like, whether those Travis Scott lawsuits are gonna stick or what's gonna happen now that Britney's finally free. This week, we're talking about fast fashion and how it took over your IG. And how you can stop buying a new $5 shirt from Sheen every week. You can find pop culture with the skin right here where you're listening to skim this. Ketchup Tuesday. We the jury find the defendant, Kyle H ridden house not guilty. As to the third con Friday, a jury in Kenosha Wisconsin acquitted Kyle rittenhouse of all 5 charges against him, including homicide. As a reminder, last year, the then 17 year old shot and killed two men and injured a third at a Black Lives Matter protest sparked by the police Shooting of Jacob Blake. Brittain house had traveled across state lines with an AR-15 style rifle and said his goal was to protect businesses and provide medical aid during the protest. Rittenhouse's defense team argued he was acting in self defense, and that the people he killed or injured had posed a threat to him. Prosecutors meanwhile argued that it was written house who provoked the violence and was an active threat to others. This case may have divided the country, but it didn't divide the jury, who unanimously said rittenhouse can walk free. And while this is one trial of one person, a lot of people are drawing bigger conclusions about what it means for America and the justice system. For one, this trial puts racial disparities on display. The verdict has a lot of people calling out the unequal ways people of color are treated in the justice system, compared to white people. For instance, there's a video of police handing rittenhouse a water bottle and thanking him for being there, which has a lot of people asking whether an armed black man on the same streets would have been shown the same respect by law enforcement and the justice system. Studies have shown that black men receive sentences that are on average about 20% longer than white men. For the same crime, and are also disproportionately stopped arrested and killed by police. The other issues this trial has brought to light are around self defense and gun rights. That's because the jury and rittenhouse's trial wasn't there to determine if he killed two people. But just whether he was acting in self defense. And if he was, the rest kind of didn't matter, at least in the eyes of the law. To learn more about how self defense arguments play out in courtrooms, we called up Cheryl Vader, I teach at fordham law school. I'm an associate Professor of clinical law. Vader told us, in order to evaluate whether self defense was appropriately used, juries look at the moment violence occurred. But what's often missing in those evaluations of self defense are the larger pieces of context, like where the violence happened, or what kind of gun was used. So self defense relies upon this notion of the reasonable person and whether the reasonable person was in fear. And so normally we look at that moment when they act when they fire their shot. So here, the defense was really trying to narrow that moment. We saw the defense showing clips of the moment that a victim would try to take away rittenhouse's gun. But everything that preceded that, that wasn't included and what constitutes reasonableness. So is it reasonable to bring an assault rifle to a rally and to say I'm a medic, but I'm not bringing my medic bag. I'm just bringing an assault rifle. And there's one type of self defense law that's come under the microscope recently. Stand your ground laws. At least 30 states have stand your ground laws, which allow people to use deadly force without first attempting to remove themselves from a dangerous situation. Stand your ground laws have become the subject of a lot of controversy because they often involve racial violence, like in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin in 2012. There are a lot of racial implications because self defense is based on fear. And social science research on implicit bias shows that white people tend to see images of black people as being more violent and more aggressive and therefore they're going to tend to claim that they're in fear and will react to that fear. Wisconsin, where rittenhouse was on trial, doesn't have a formal stand your ground law, but it does allow for people to use deadly force in moments where they believe they're being threatened. Wisconsin, like almost every state has a version of an open carry law, which is what allowed rittenhouse and others to arm themselves and enter a protest. I think the open carry laws have a big impact on self defense because rather than this reasonable person standard, it becomes a reasonable person who's carrying a weapon. And so when you bring a weapon to a public space, it should be reasonably foreseeable that somebody is going to try to rest that gun from you to protect other people. But yet if you are allowed under the law to carry that gun, then that act of carrying the gun won't be seen as an aggressive act. Besides people being able to carry a gun when and where they want, the number of gun owners is also soaring. According to the FBI, last year, over 39 million firearm background checks were conducted, which is over 10 million more than the year before. Now, some experts in commentators are saying, when you combine an increase in gun ownership with the ability to openly carry a gun and legal protection to kill to defend yourself, we could see more dangerous scenarios in the future, particularly in states with a lot of political divisions. I think that unfortunately might see a transformation in the law around self defense with open carry laws with laws that allow citizens to make citizen arrests. You're going to see a potential wild west environment. Where vigilante justice is quote unquote justified as self defense. I think we might also see a chilling of people's First Amendment rights because people may be fearful of going to rallies, knowing that people have open carrion will be carrying guns, and they could use those guns against them and then claim self defense. The debate over gun rights and whether everyday citizens should have the ability to enforce the law themselves, is also happening in another high profile trial in Georgia. Three white men are on trial for murder for the 2020 fatal shooting of ahmaud Arbery, a black man. Both these cases raise issues around vigilante justice. And both these cases raise issues around what is the appropriate standard for self defense? Who can claim self defense? Like rittenhouse, the three men on trial are also claiming self defense. While the prosecution is arguing these men who believed artery was breaking into a house, tried to enforce the law, even though that isn't their job, and there was no evidence to suggest Arbery was breaking the law in the first place. The jury isn't deliberations right now in that trial. And as the country watches to see whether gun rights advocates will be handed another win, Bader fears not only could we see an increase in vigilante justice, but we could also see further divisions in our culture. We have this very gun loving culture and I think people are more afraid of having their gun taken from them both literally and figuratively than any other fear that we may have seen in these cases. I think as we see this sort of division within society around guns, we're actually going to see greater violence that there's this sort of myth that's perpetuated of sort of the good guy with a gun and I think we see that play out in both the written house, case. And potentially.
"rittenhouse" Discussed on Gun Talk
"Let's review. You are probably not going to have all the video that they had of this. Because I am absolutely convinced that there had not been video of this Kyle rittenhouse would be going to prison. If we didn't have all this video to show exactly what happened, I think he would have been convicted. You're not going to have that. Almost certainly. You're probably not going to have $2 million in money to use for your defense. Probably. All that to say that you can do everything you think is correct and still suffer major consequence. For that matter, even though he was acquitted, rittenhouse has massive PTSD. Our guarantee he wishes he had never gone there. Yeah, I don't hold him up as a poster child or a hero or anything else. I think probably exercise poor judgment in being there, having said that, once you're there, you're still allowed to defend yourself. One pundit, I was reading and said, well, you know, once you bring a gun to an event, you give up all of your rights to self defense. Well, that would mean that everybody carrying a gun can see you with a permit has no right to self defense. That would mean that the 60 million adults who live in states that have permit list carry constitution carry have no right to self defense if they bring a gun. There would mean that if you have a gun in your home, you have no right to self defense. It's ludicrous. It's nonsense. There's a, I don't know if you'd call a projection or what it is from the left from the gun ban crowd. But I've said this for many, many years. And I think it's absolutely true. And that is the fact that we take care of ourselves that we carry guns. Threatens their self image. Because they are unwilling to take care of themselves, and they believe in the state for everything. It's the whole, why did you have a gun? We have the police for that. Why were you putting out fires? We have a fire department for that. And then you get the inevitable. That's not your job. Actually, I beg to differ. I think it is our job. I think it's our job to take care of ourselves and our fellow man and our community. And someone comes in and wants to burn my community down and go, you know, I don't think so. Especially when over the last two years, we've seen police departments be told, back up, let them have it. Let them burn it. Let them do whatever they want to. Now there's no police protection. Oh yeah, there's also no fire protection in there. And more and more people are saying no, you're not going to do that to my town. Good, bad. I don't know, but I sure understand it. But back to the idea that the gun band folks, they are threatened by this because they look at themselves and realize they are unwilling or uncapable or incapable of protecting themselves. They find themselves lacking but they can only see that relative to us. If we are prepared and willing to take care of ourselves, our families, then they look bad. In comparison. And rather than them step up cowboy up, they decide to take care of themselves and their families. They say, no, rather than do that, I'm just going to make sure you can't do that. They were all on the same level. You'll be the same as me. You'll be weak. You'll be unwilling. You will be irresponsible. You won't take care of your family. You will be willing to let things happen then. You'll depend upon calling someone who may or may not come.
"rittenhouse" Discussed on Gun Talk
"Trial in verdict. Not guilty on all counts. Self defense. The media lied about so many things. Here's just a few of the things the media lied about. These peaceful protests most certainly were not. It was one of those deals it's like the husband who gets caught in bed with another woman, and he tells his wife, who are you going to believe me or you're lying eyes? While they're telling us they are peaceful protests we're looking at buildings burning. Not peaceful. Okay, big lie there. Kyle rittenhouse did not travel across state lines with a rifle, but who cares he could. It would have been legal, nothing wrong with that. Rittenhouse did not hunt down anyone. He was running away at every point. He was not an active shooter, one of the things that keep wanting to say, he was active shooter. He wasn't. You look up the FBI's definition of active shooter. No point does this qualify. He was not a white supremacist. Note that everyone involved in this from rittenhouse to the people who shot where all the same color all three people he shot and the one he missed, were trying to hurt or kill him. All four had records for violent crime. History suggests that if he had allowed any of them to get him on the ground or hit him in the head, grab his gun or shoot him with a legally carried pistol. He would have been killed. They were stomped him to death. Choose your information sources carefully. Okay, to that. A lot of folks in the gun world are celebrating this. I get that. And I agree. He should have been found not guilty. But do not take that and say, therefore, that solidifies my position if I ever have to get into a self defense situation of my pursuits of my self defense. My concern here would be that that would, perhaps make people slightly less cautious, slightly encourage them to.
"rittenhouse" Discussed on TIME's Top Stories
"He could have aimed it and shot the defendant, but he did not binger said, attempting to counter the defense portrayal of gross groups as a threatening presence who led rittenhouse to fear for his own life. Rittenhouse took the unusual step of taking the stand in his own defense and testified that rosenbaum, who was unarmed, ambushed and threatened to kill him, and that he was then chased down by a mob before falling to the ground and opening fire again. I didn't do anything wrong. I defended myself. He said at one point, breaking down and heaving sobs that led the judge to call a recess. The trial featured several heated moments and not just from the witnesses. Judge Schroeder's own conduct, which included yelling at the prosecution team on several occasions, also drew attention. Jurors were tasked with deciding if rittenhouse was reasonable in thinking he faced imminent death or bodily injury when he opened fire. His self defense claim took center stage in closing statements as the defense and the prosecution seized on video of rittenhouse firing his rifle to try to sway the jury to see things from opposing points of view. None of these people posed an imminent threat binger said. My client didn't shoot at anyone until he was chased and cornered, countered defense attorney, Mark Richards after showing jurors the same video, which jurors reviewed during their deliberations. Each side emphasized not just the matter of mindset, but the sizes of the people involved. Their body language, and the objects in their hands at the time of the altercations. Going through footage, second by second to underscore their points. Richards said rittenhouse could easily have been overpowered by the older men. Binger said that rosenbaum who's killing sparked the pursuit that ended in the other shootings was just 5 foot four inches tall and 150 pounds, unarmed and described by other witnesses as nothing more than a babbling idiot. Binger noted that only gross fruits had a firearm and said video showed, he was retreating before being shot. Richards insisted the video showed the opposite, and he described the skateboard that huber used to hit rittenhouse in the head as a deadly weapon. Every person who was shot was attacking Kyle, one with escape board, one with his hands, one with his feet, one with a gun. Hands and feet can cause great bodily harm. Richards said, reminding jurors of the wording of self defense law. Richards also blamed the men who were shot for their deaths or injuries, particularly rosenbaum, whom he described as irrational and crazy. I'm glad he shot him, Richard said. But binger said it was the crowd that chased after rittenhouse after he had shot rosenbaum, not rittenhouse, who reasonably believed they were in imminent danger as the teenager ran through the crowd waving a firearm. He does nothing to demonstrate to the crowd that he isn't a threat to kill again. And it turns out he does. Binger said, likening rittenhouse to an active shooter. They have a right to protect themselves, he said of the crowd, the defendant is not the only one in the world who has the right to self defense..
"rittenhouse" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"Differences between left and right. It's not at all trying to make the comparison. I mean, these conspiracy theories essentially come from a correct view that people have that the justice system is biased toward people. Like, absolutely. So like, you know, I get it. I understand where it's coming from. It's just been exhausting to see how much it is and how sure people are of these things that are just totally wrong on my side on the side that I would want to be more attached to the facts. That's all, man. It's just exhausting, that's awesome. I'm not saying, I'm not voting for Trump because of it or some crap. It doesn't. That's the response I get when I post about it. It's like, no, I'm not saying that, you know? It's definitely different. It's definitely not the same as QAnon. I'm not saying that. It's just exhausting, that's all. Well said. So Andrew, we've covered again two hours of lot of murders. We've done a nice meaty segment here about some of these myths. I just wanna get a couple things, top line things, takeaways for people based on your expertise here. This isn't the best judge in the world or something, not saying he's a perfect guy or whatever. But if he were trying to simply throw the case for rittenhouse, he had ample ways to do that. Like he could have already granted a mistrial with prejudice over the prosecution, what they did could have done that a he also wouldn't have allowed the jury instructions to be what they were as you were pointed out. That was a huge victory for the prosecution, right? And also, once again, I think we have to remember that the jury does decide the verdict here. Now, of course, the judge will do the sentencing part. But people are talking as though the judge is the one who decides the verdict, it seems like, with all this and, you know, there is a jury here. So it could still be the case that the jury will go the wrong way or something. But in your opinion, will that have been influenced by what the judge has done here in the trial? Yeah, I don't think so. So I think that's an excellent summary that you've just given and I want to break down a couple components of that just to make sure that we've given them full coverage in this episode. I need to say it this way because we only say it this concretely on the lamb special and 90% of the audience is not going to get a chance to see that yet. The prosecution's initial line of questioning. There are a couple preliminary questions, but pretty much out of the box of Kyle rittenhouse on the stand. Strongly suggested to me to any objective viewer and certainly to the judge that they were inquiring into why Kyle rittenhouse stayed silent after his arrest. It is called post arrest silence, and that is one of your core constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment. The experience. No, no. A huge no no. Not just a huge note. The very first thing you are taught as a prosecutor, right? Don't take off your pants in the courtroom. Second thing. Don't acquire into why haven't you told anybody about this before now? And literally, that's one of the questions. And later, there's a colleague out of the site of the jury in which the prosecutor says that he was trying to get at waver by the media, that sort of thing. He makes a distinction. And the judge basically says, all right, if you could show a media waiver then we would be talking about something else. But this sounded an awful lot like asking a question about post arrest silence and you know better than that. And then after that colleague, we go back in and virtually the next line of questioning is about the prior August incident in which guys standing on the roof of a car or hood of a car or whatever. And rittenhouse says, boy, you know, if I have my gun, I would shoot you. Now, we may argue about whether that should or should not be advisable. But the judge ruled that inadmissible. And again, in a defensive ruling, right? I'm not suggesting the defense got a 100% that the prosecution got a 100% of the rulings in their favor. They would have liked to have gotten this in and they didn't. I can see exactly why, because the judge kept it out on 408 basis, which is to say, I'm sorry I'm 403 basis, which is to say, this probably seems way more prejudicial than it is probative. I don't know. But the point is that was the ruling. The judge said, I'm strongly inclined against allowing you to bring this up at trial. That was pretty much word for word what he said. And again, you see this judge, I wish it were. I wish it were otherwise. Leaving kind of half finished rulings all over the place. The same thing with the defense's motion to dismiss the gun charge. He should have just said, I'm granting your motion before the trial. But instead he is like, well, I'm strongly inclined to grant your motion. And here, the prosecution said, we want to bring in this prior evidence. And he said, I'm strongly inclined against that. And then the prosecution starts asking questions about that. To the jury in front of the jury. And there's an immediate objection. We go back off the record again. And here, and I believe, this is you may have seen some of the judge outburst. This is a correct outburst at the prosecutor to say where he says, well, your honor, I believe, you know, you left the door open and the judge says, yeah, for me, but not for you. The correct way to get this evidence in is to dismiss the jury out to the liver. You gotta ask permission. And ask permission. And you didn't. And to do that on the heels of having potentially committed a major ethics violation, left the judge that day going, you seem like a scumbag prosecutor and, quote, I don't believe that you acted in good faith in asking that question about the August event. That is severe prosecutors. It was not a good court thingy for the prosecution. No. And it led to some of the things that you've said. It led to that request for dismissal for a mistrial with prejudice, which the judge said, well, I'm going to consider that because he was super angry..
"rittenhouse" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"This is also I think something you covered on lot of murders, but just to emphasize it here as well, the jury instructions were an instance where the judge ruled strongly kind of in favor of the prosecution, got no coverage, right? Got zero coverage in particular, the very first thing the jury did when they were out was request pages one to 6 of the jury instructions. By the way, these are 36 pages long. So if you're wondering, boy, is it weird that it's gone on for three days of deliberation? No, there's 36 pages of stuff that you have to work through in a conscientious way. There are 5 separate counts, those counts have lesser included offenses none of this is surprising. It would have been surprising if we had gotten a verdict back on day one or day two that would have indicated the jury was kind of unanimous coming out of the box in disbelief of Kyle rittenhouse or in complete belief of Kyrie, right? It would have indicated a near unanimity of beliefs at the end of the trial to be done on day one or day two. It doesn't surprise me that there's not. You know, again, you and I talk about this when we evaluate his testimony on lamb. Like Kyrgyz was a very, very good witness. You have to go through and kind of put everything together. The way the prosecution, I think did very effectively in their closing arguments to make the case. And then the jury kind of goes through and applies what they decide factually to the legal instructions that were given. They asked first for copies of pages one to 6. That contains the provocation instruction. The provocation instruction says if Kyle rittenhouse provoked the violence that occurred against him, he can not claim self defense unless he is exhausted every other means. And the evidence just doesn't support that. Yeah. And so that is with respect to the top line class B first degree reckless homicide against rosenbaum. And so if they've resolved that and the jury is arguing over lesser offenses against the daily the daily caller guy or whatever, that is to suggest that the felony that carries a 60 year prison term. They may have already come to an agreement on that on the basis of this instruction. Wow. And so yeah, if you have your thumbnails and look like, if the judge is excluded it, I would have said, yeah, I think that's a bad call. It would have been on the side of. It feels like he's got his thumb on the scale for the defense a little bit here. This is how you would do it. You would have jury instructions that lead the jury to a particular outcome. And they just aren't there. And we're going to include that in the show notes. A couple things to sort of wrap this all up. Number one, there is still a pending motion for a mistrial with prejudice, which would prevent them from retrying rittenhouse at all. That is based on the argument that prosecutorial misconduct of inquiring into post arrest silence and into the prior event that was excluded by the judge. There is no way that the judge is going to grant that motion. It still pending is not going to happen. Number two, you may have heard that the judge Bard MSNBC from being in the courtroom and following the trial. That just broke today. Yeah, that's because a guy broke through the court and was tailing the van that was shuttling the jurors back in the hotel. And identified himself as an MSNBC reporter. And NBC News said, well, you know, there was a freelance, so yeah, unless he had no connection to MSNBC, which doesn't seem to be the case. This is a 100% appropriate. And the judge's reaction was was perfectly adequate. I don't know if that's being spun anywhere else. Oh, it is. Yeah. That would be crazy. You can not have rogue journalists, tracking. I mean, just imagine if it were the other side. I mean, why can't he just band that person? You could have, but I think the prophylactic. I like you said. I mean, if it was Fox News person and they banned Fox News would be like, yeah, that makes sense. Yeah, of course, a 100%. We would be like, yeah, you can't have a policy. That encourages your freelancers to hunt down the jury. Yeah. Absolutely. The other thing I see is the picture of written house. I don't even know what the claim is here. The picture where written house is like in the same frame as the judge. What is that? I've seen that. That is the most dishonest of them all. And that's why you've only seen it in a couple of the truly most deplorable. I don't know, man. I've seen these. All right. Well, anybody sharing that is either doing so uncritically and the first generation was completely false. So remember that in determining whether to give the provocation instruction because the judge did not let them pinch and zoom on the drone video. They got in a hundred inch TV, you know, four K, ultra high def TV. They played the drone footage of it and played it frame by frame and multiple times. And the judge had to go like mister magoo like sit in three inches away from the screen while the prosecution was pointing them to that screen. Then rip the house is allowed to be in the courtroom. He's not handcuffed or anything. He is 100% entitled as the defendant to see what you're showing the judge in open court. So rittenhouse is standing and it is like 30 feet behind. The judge and leaning over and watching what the prosecution is showing the judge on video. And this is some kind of oh yeah, no, he's way behind, 'cause I have seen the live footage from the other direction. This photo was shot from the gallery at a weird angle and you can tell based on how blurry and I can't remember if it's either the judge is blurry and rittenhouse is in focus or Rick mouse's blurry and the judges in focus. That's because there's a tremendous because the angle, there's a tremendous amount of foreshortening. And they're both watching the TV, which this angle has cropped around. And the picture is being disseminated as here he is posing with the judge or whatever. I've seen a couple of different mis captions on it that is not. I watched the testimony live. If I'm wrong in the distance, I don't think it's 30 feet, but it's definitely fine. Yeah, it was over. It was well over ten their chairs in the way. Like it is just, he's just so it's exhausting. It's just exhausting, you know? Man, that doesn't mean I'm saying like the left and right of the side. I'm not saying that. It's just like, why do we have to do this? Why does it have to be so much misinformation about this coming from the left? It's just like, get a listen to our show. You know, like, take two seconds to get the information. It is, you know, if you and I have identified conspiracy theory and, you know, kuhnen and bad information as an implacable source of tensions and problems and what's going to make it impossible to solve this political situation. We have to call it out when our side is doing it. And our side's coverage of this trial has been as bad as anything that I've seen. And sadly, like that energy has driven mainstream coverage on MSNBC. A couple of folks have gotten it right, but not too many. And look, there's obviously differences..
"rittenhouse" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"The subject of the pinch and zoom argument. That the video that was shown in open court and shown to the judge was X density and that it was sent over to the defense in a compressed file format so it was blurrier and worse density. And the defense is saying, hey, if we knew that you had a higher res copy of this, it would have changed the way in which we put on our defense. Interesting. And I have to tell you that this is really going to come down to two questions. I can not tell you that this motion for a mistrial is without merit. If there is strong evidence that prosecution intentionally hid or intentionally compressed the file, that absolutely would be grounds for a mistrial. And we should want that. I do not want even in this case. I don't want the prosecutors like giving a worse version of the evidence to the other side. But this sounds like it's gotta be just a merely technology, you know, like, ah, we didn't understand the button. We put, you know, right? I mean, so what happens then? It feels like it to me. And in that case, if it is inadvertent, then the judge is going to say to what degree were you prejudiced by the way in which this evidence was introduced? And here, the fact that they did not do the pinch and zoom. And we talked through all this, we talked throughout this on lamb as well. The argument about adding pixels and this and that eventually the prosecution just sort of gave up and we're like, all right, we're just going to show this super slow to the jury. The fact that they didn't do the pension zoom, I think is going to inadvertently help them avoid the mistrial. Because the judge is going to say, I find that this was not material to your ability to cross examine on this evidence. You know, to claim, as you did in open court, that it was blurry that it was hard to see that it was ambiguous. You made all those arguments you made those arguments in front of the jury and having a more clear version for your prep. I don't think would have changed the argument that you made when you saw it, you know, when you saw the actual version of the evidence in the court. Now, just to be clear, did the prosecution mess this up in terms of what the jury saw? Nope. The question was, just a question. Because you have to tell you have to give the okay. Everything that's relevant that they could use. So that's it. That's what this entire storm is about. And the secret screenshot showed a program. It's called handbrake. I don't know anything, I've never used handbrake. I don't maybe you have. No, I don't know what that is, actually. And the idea is that program can be used to compress video files. Therefore, they intentionally compress the video file. Therefore, they're lying. Therefore, mistrial, therefore, Kyle rittenhouse go straight to hosting a show on Fox, which will happen if he doesn't. If he gets that cleared, yeah. And what I will say here is that seems like a long chain of inferences, but if, in fact, that happened. If the prosecutor deliberately tampered with the evidence to make it worse, then I suspect you will get a mistrial without prejudice on the basis of inadequate disclosure. And it will be frustrating, we'll have to go try this all over again. But again, if you thought this trial was in the bag for rittenhouse, you should be applauding that result true. Fearing it. I think it is probably.
"rittenhouse" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"Andrew, why don't I play the part of the occupy Democrats, Twitter account sort of thing that seems to be really putting out a lot of bad information about the rittenhouse trial, and then you can respond. What do you think? All right, excellent. Let's do it. Okay, so this just in, did you see that the judge let Kyle rittenhouse choose his jurors and who was going to decide his fate? Yes. So here's that. Wisconsin's weird in most states, in Wisconsin's weird. I'm sorry. In most states, you select a jury and you differentiate the jurors from the alternates at the beginning of the trip. Now, all the alternate sit throughout the whole trial, but you know that you're not going to be needed. You're going to be dismissed at the end unless a juror is dismissed for cause over the course of the trial. And as we saw there were, in fact, two jurors dismissed four cause over the course of this trial, including the one who decided he was going to tell a racist question mark whatever. So this happens. Can I say this, though, already? I feel like this could be a better method. Forgetting the drawing thing that we're going to get to. But it might be a good methodology to be like, you don't know whether you're the actual juror, the alternate, because I can imagine jury duty's jury duty, maybe the alternates are like, eh, I don't care. Maybe I'm saying too much. That's fair, but now you are left with what they have to do in Wisconsin, which is, at the end of the jury, you got too many jurors. So what they do is they draw lots to dismiss various jurors. It is true that in most courtrooms, it's the clerk that draws these lots. It has been judge Schroeder's policy since 1984 when he assumed the bench to have the defendant, draw those lots. Is it weird? It's weird. Is it a thing you usually see? It's not a thing you usually see, but it's not a conspiracy unless you believe in time. I feel like I just, yeah, I love the idea of like what is the conspiracy here? Because we all know that you can manipulate games of chance to also choose the ones that you somehow know are going to be sympathetic. That would be an amazing scheme if that somehow made any difference in the verdict here. Before I looked into whether I assumed knowing that it was not going to be the case that this was a one off by judge Schroeder. And again, it isn't. He's always done this. He's always done this. But assume that it was, what possible prejudice would it be to put a random procedure in the hands of the defendant? I don't understand. I mean, it's weird. I'm not sure I argue about 1985 NBA draft that he secretly folded the corners and throwed it up again. Also implies that the judge has omniscience over how the jury's going to pit. Like it's just so weird that we do this. Why are we doing this? Look, okay, I'll continue on. Okay, Wally. Andrew, did you know, though, that this judge who just loves rittenhouse is in love with rittenhouse, dismissed the gun possession charge for no reason. Yeah. That's all true, except for the for no reason part. We talk about this on the lamb special a little bit. But I'm prepared to kind of break down this law to you. This is Wisconsin statute 9 48.6. And it is a class a misdemeanor, okay? And so here's the first thing that all of these outlets that are talking about dismissing the gun charge, even if you're right, if the jury came back and convicted only on this gun charge, you would be up in arms. And I would be up and right. There's a misdemeanor. He would get zero prison time. And have to pay a fine of like $200 if convicted. Yeah. Very insignificant. People are treating this like this is the trial. I can just dismiss the gravity as you always say of the charges, but it's pretty insignificant. Either way, what's going to matter is if he gets charged with one of these way more serious crimes. And it omits. Convicted. That what the judge left in are 5 escalators, kickers they're called on each of the on each of the respective counts, including the lesser included offenses. And so if rittenhouse is convicted on any of the other counts, then that automatically triggers a 5 year escalation because he because of the government was committed with a firearm. So the much more serious firearms offense was left in the utterly unsubstantial one was dismissed. Why was it dismissed because the Wisconsin legislature is an idiot, okay? And again, I'm going to prove this to you by reading it to you. Subsection two a says, any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a class a misdemeanor. And elsewhere in the statute, semi automatic firearms we have a firearm defined as a dangerous weapon. Okay, so people are saying open and shut case. But then there is section subsection three C and it says this. Okay. It says section two a, the one that I just read to you applies to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or shotgun. If the person is in violation of 9 41.28 or is not in compliance with 29.304 and 29.5 93. That's the end of the relevant provision. So in other words, the statute only applies if you have a gun and you also violate 9 41 28, or you're not in compliance with those two things that you might notice they begin with a 29. That's because those are hunting restrictions. So we can sever those off. Those don't apply here, nobody was doing any hunting. Nobody claims they were doing any hunting. So the question is, was written House under 18 years of age? Yes, was he armed with a rifle or shotgun? Yes, he was armed with a rifle. So then, the question is, was he in violation of 9 41 28? 9 41 28 prevents sawed off shotguns and snub nose rifles. Well, rittenhouse did not have one of those. He had an AR-15 a long barreled AR-15. Now, the argument the prosecution made was, well, they didn't really mean applies only to a person under 18. Like, come on, this is stupid and not what the legislature meant because reading it this way, you now are guilty of this misdemeanor if you had a different kind of deadly weapon that was not a shotgun or a rifle. For example, ninja throwing stars and nunchucks and brass knuckles. And brass knuckles are specifically mentioned in the statue. And so the prosecutor was like, there's no way on earth that Wisconsin legislature meant to say you're guilty of this crime if you have brass knuckles, but you're not if you're carrying an assault rifle..
"rittenhouse" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show
"Go to the post office again. I want to play this cut here of Anna kasparian. She's been super nasty to me throughout the years. And I'm not going to compliment her. Some people are kudos to her and it's not about that. What's about with this clip is most interesting, though. She's a leftist. She's a young Turk person, whatever. The reason why this clip is interesting, though, is that she admits that she was participating in the simulation when it came to court proceedings. Meaning that she thought she knew all the facts and circumstances around the Kyle rittenhouse drama, and she says, oh, actually, I had it wrong. Now why this is important is that half the country is believing this around vaccines around masks around lockdowns are on hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin azithromycin around. Vaccinating children, all these sorts of things. That Anna kasparian in a rare moment of honesty speaks out and says, no, no, no, actually. I had this all wrong. So let's go to cut 99 where she says out loud, far left winger. The facts and circumstances around Kyle rittenhouse, people have been lying. Play cut 99. But look, these details matter because if you're gonna make an argument that you acted in self defense, there needs to be some proof that there was an imminent threat. Now, what really mattered to me was how all of this unfolded? What was the thing that sparked it? What started all of it? And initially, I was under the assumption that rittenhouse was the person who was chasing after Joseph rosenbaum that that's how it started. But I was wrong about that, okay? So I want to correct the record. I was in fact wrong about that. You were wrong because everyone on television has been intentionally wrong trying to slander an innocent young man Kyle rittenhouse because it feels good to support the narrative that young white men are carrying AR 15s, in Kenosha, trying to hunt people down, and that was not true. But I do give her credit for correcting it. I wish more people did that. Unlike joy Reid and Chris Hayes, who doubled down on the fake and false narrative. One more clip here, and then I want to bring in Dave Hancock, who is the rittenhouse family spokesperson, I want to play Jonathan turley cut 85 on how the prosecution is acting like the Titanic sinking and how the prosecution witnesses turned on them to benefit written house. Play cut 85. Well, the prosecution couldn't have had a more disastrous day yesterday. And this has a feeling of feverishly moving the furniture on the deck of the Titanic because the ship seems really to be sinking by the hour. Really, the prosecution stumbled right out of the gate. It's called key witnesses that turned on the prosecution and gave what was very beneficial testimony in favor of rittenhouse. The prosecution is falling apart. This was a sham trial from the beginning. Let's welcome to the show. Dave Hancock, spokesperson for the Kyle rittenhouse family..
"rittenhouse" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show
"I know that's something in the Kenosha. I mean, the Kenosha trial. But this camera's in there. It's definitely cameras up in there and it's definitely people taking pictures of the jury's and everything like that. We know what's going on. So we need the same results, man. We need the same results. Justice for Dante right, justice for also. Oh, we need the same results. We have cameras of the jury. That is the illegal what he is doing. Yet the Department of Justice is too busy trying to go find a diary that belong to Biden's daughter while you have George Floyd's nephew May he rest in peace always saint George Floyd. May we owe his memory always be a blessing. It's ridiculous, how we have to put up with this charade for a couple years. And meanwhile, his nephew is threatening jurors in Kenosha. What I want to just say, though, that there is an unexpected hero. And that is the judge, Bruce Schroeder, he is a true wisconsinite, and he is pushing back against this aggressive prosecution that is unfairly trying to frame the case into something that it isn't. So let's go one by one. Let's go to 78, the judge is scolding the prosecution. By the way, where were judges like this standing up against election fraud? Where were judges like this standing up against the balloting issues? Where were judges like the standing up? Against any of the abuses of power we've seen, where are the judges like this that stood up against the Pfizer Warren app Warren application to spy on Donald Trump? This is how judges are supposed to work when the prosecution acts reckless and ballistic. Play cut 78. Why would you think that that made it okay for you without any advanced notice to bring this matter before the jury? You are already I was astonished. When you began your examination by commenting on the defendant's post arrest, silence. That's basic law. It's been basic law in this country for 40 years, 50 years. I have no idea why you would do something like that. And it gives well, I'll leave it at that. So I don't know what you're up to. Then cut 80 the judge continues by saying the prosecution, this is not permitted. This judge is how every judge in the country needs to be about standing up for the rule of law, standing up for due process, standing up for the constitution. Play cut 80. To what has already been introduced. The problem is, this is a grave constitutional violation for you to talk about the defendants, silence, and that is, and you're right. You're right on the you're right on the borderline. And you may, you may be over. But it better stop. Understood. This is I can't think of the case that an initial case on it, but this is not permitted. All right. Yes, did you already come in please? This judge dismissed the jury twice to scold the prosecution for crossing constitutional barriers and limits regarding Kyle rittenhouse's waving of his Fifth Amendment rights and also the line of questioning and not submitting basically the topics or the subjects that he was going to cross examine Kyle rittenhouse with. So let's play some of Kyle rittenhouse's testimony. So Kyle rittenhouse took the stand that is a huge risk. Now the only I could see positive wrinkle. I think Kyle's doing fine. He's a young guy, okay? He's a young man, and that is a tough situation. He's no. He knows he's on national TV being grilled by this jerk, but the only positive, remember, it doesn't matter necessarily how well you answer every question, what matters is can you win over one juror? And I think, again, I'm not saying this is wise, but I think actually I should I should think deeply about that. Because I'm constantly struggling. The defense is bet. Let me just do this. The defense's bet is that in today's America, this this decision, this case was not going to be decided on technical law. That instead, they need to win over one juror that says they don't want to put the young man Kyle rittenhouse, who is largely clueless around types of ammo and places and locations in jail. I believe that was the defense's thinking. Kyle rittenhouse explains cut 70 he breaks down when he is recounting how he got quartered by three men while trying to flee the conflict. I think that him crying is going to help him. I think the jury is going to see that. They saw that they say, this is not a murderer. This is a kid who defended himself. Play cut 70..
"rittenhouse" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show
"George Floyd's nephew is openly threatening jurors in the Kyle rittenhouse case. That's right, George Floyd's nephew is openly threatening jurors that might not give them the verdict they want. So this is the way things work in America now. Judge the rule the way we want, or we're going to burn your city down. Put young white men who defend themselves in prison, or else we're going to destroy all the Wendy's in your local area. Play cut 32. I ain't even gonna name the people that I know that's something in the Kenosha. I mean, the Kenosha trial. But this camera's in there. It's definitely cameras up in there and it's definitely people taking pictures of the jury's and everything like that. We know what's going on. So we need the same results, man. We need the same results. Justice for Dante right, justice for also. Oh, we need the same results. We have cameras of the jury. That is the illegal what he is doing. Yet the Department of Justice is too busy trying to go find a diary that belong to Biden's daughter while you have George Floyd's nephew May he rest in peace always saint George Floyd. May we owe his memory always be a blessing. It's ridiculous, how we have to put up with this charade for a couple years. And meanwhile, his nephew is threatening jurors in Kenosha. What I want to just say, though, that there is an unexpected hero. And that is the judge, Bruce Schroeder, he is a true wisconsinite, and he is pushing back against this aggressive prosecution that is unfairly trying to frame the case into something that
"rittenhouse" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show
"I did not plan it all to get to this. I have a whole stack of papers to get to. I can tell you, we're going to talk about snitches, we're going to talk about how school board members in Scottsdale, Arizona have spying files on you. Some of these things are going to have to wait till tomorrow. How they're getting rid of deez and fs how Pfizer COVID jab trials falsified data and then we got a lot of stories to get to, but I want to recap the written house stuff happening in real time because look, this written house situation is a lot bigger than just Kyle rittenhouse. Now why Kyle rittenhouse decided to testify? I might be proven wrong here. I'm by no means a legal expert, but I know that it's usually not wise to take the stand in your own defense. Now maybe it will humanize him maybe it will give the jury some ability to have compassion and sympathize with him, not exactly sure the wisdom behind it because it seems that despite Kyle doing his best, the prosecution has been so incredibly unfair. Now with that being said, let's go into some cuts here of the judge just laying it out. But first, let's frame the reality what's happening in Wisconsin. Cut 32. George Floyd's nephew is openly threatening jurors in the Kyle rittenhouse case. That's right, George Floyd's nephew is openly threatening jurors that might not give them the verdict they want. So this is the way things work in America now. Judge the rule the way we want, or we're going to burn your city down. Put young white men who defend themselves in prison, or else we're going to destroy all the Wendy's in your local area. Play cut 32. I ain't even.
"rittenhouse" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show
"With us as a friend of mine and I think you could call him the resident Catholic contributor. He's a godly man. He's patriotic courageous. You know him as Jack pass sobic from human events daily brought to you by turning point USA. Jack, there's a lot I want to talk to you about. Good to see you. And but let's start with kind of how your honorable fixation has honestly made me more interested and let's say fixated on the Kyle rittenhouse story. A lot of our listeners don't have a lot of they're not really aware of what's happening. This is not being covered as much as the Floyd saga. Let's start from the beginning. What happened? Who is Kyle rittenhouse? What is he charged with? Just start from the beginning and then we'll work through the current. Yeah, sure, no, thanks, Charlie, and appreciate the intro there. So what happened with Kyle rittenhouse? You have to go back to the summer of rage of 2020. Florida palus. Right. That was exactly. That was peppered throughout with these ubiquitous protests during the day and then riots looting arson at night. And in one of the cities, actually a small city called Kenosha, Wisconsin about an hour north of Chicago about an hour south of Milwaukee right in between. Following the police shooting of a criminal named Jacob Blake, who charged a police officer with an extended knife. There were multiple nights of rioting, looting and arson, the descendant upon this town from people who, by the way, mostly, were not actually from Kenosha Wisconsin. They were again, as I mentioned from Milwaukee and Chicago. This is in between them. And so on night three of this, you've got people that are scared out of their minds in the community. You've got people and we heard this in jury selection that were going into the local churches with their families to say, maybe if we go in here, we'll be safe because hopefully they won't attack a church. That's how bad it got in the village of Kenosha that night by night three. So Kyle rittenhouse was at the time 17 years old. He was about 15 minutes away, drove in with his friend and some others who had been asked to be there. To help protect the town, Kyle worked as a lifeguard in Kenosha. He had also been around there earlier that day, scrubbing off graffiti from the walls, right? By all intents and purposes we know that this is a guy who was there who cares about his hometown of use this as his hometown and wants to do the right thing doesn't like to see these roving bands of marauders coming through this. Well, as the night continues, the Nike continues Kyle's there. He's trying to offer medical aid to people on both sides, by the way, running around saying, does anyone need medical? Does anyone need this? He does have an AR-15 style rifle in order to defend himself. But for the most part of the night, he's not carrying that is kind of strapped on, but he's carrying a fire extinguisher to help put out fires at this car lot, as car dealership that has been attacked by these arsonists. So at one point, he hears about a car lot that's going off. This is a business that is multiple lots around town. So he's running to go put out the fire while carrying a fire extinguisher. Multiple members of this mob see him target him and begin chasing him through the street and then through the parking lot and at one point we just saw an HD footage today for the very first time. One of the assailants actually reaches for his gun after cornering tile in between a group of parked cars and at that point Kyle take steps to defend himself.
"rittenhouse" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"In that case, it turned up there was a letter from Jensen was accused of poisoning his wife with antifreeze, and there was a letter secreted away that was discovered. I mean, this is such a great lot awful movie, right? That said, hey, if anything ever happens to me, and I turn up dead. My husband should be the first suspect. Wow. Jesus. Right. And the question was, do you admit that letter into evidence, right? And the argument against it is the confrontation clause, right? Is to say yet the person who wrote it is now dead and you'll never be able to cross examine them, provide any context whatsoever. It's obviously supremely prejudicial. Schroeder let it in. It got overturned on appeal, but then reversed at the Supreme Court. So ultimately his view is his pro prosecutorial view was validated by the Supreme Court. So he's a judge that we wouldn't be a fan of in any other context until there's somebody we want prosecuted. Yeah. I think that's right. Yeah. Sometimes you're on the prosecution side. That's right. So he is overseeing hundreds of trials, additional stuff that might factor into your decision. He had a trial in the 1980s in which he ordered a convicted child molester who was also a sex worker compelled that person to get an aids test and the basis of the ruling was you have the ability to carry death into people's homes. That's obviously not super woke and not great. But like, you know, for 1985, it is very, very typical of politicians of both parties in 1985. Again, I say that not to excuse that, I think everyone knows where we stand on this show. In this case, in addition to we've talked about some of the motions in lemonade, denied a defense request to be able to show that one of the victims and I have no idea who this is. Don't care this seems super gross. One of them was a convicted pedophile. No idea if that is true. That is the kind of thing. No, I remember that being a talking point at the time on the right, which again just shows you how bankrupt they are. Yeah, okay. Definitely what happened was Kyle rittenhouse identified somehow ran a background check. Like you would possible the information. Oh, there you go. Yeah, what possible relevance? Could that have to the question of whether or not you're allowed to just shoot people as a citizen? Right, right. Well, one of them might end up being a bad guy. Oh yeah, okay. So if you're looking for, is he a pro rittenhouse right wing secret Trump kuhnen on hack? Probably not, denying that motion seems like a no brainer. By the way, the right never uses that argument with abortion. It's always gonna be Mozart. The fetus was going to cure cancer. And then if you're just shooting unarmed protesters, bob, they were probably, you know, probably pedophiles, that's fine. It's okay. That seems like a very straightforward ruling, but again, you know, if he were in the tank for rittenhouse, you might see it go the other way. The other rulings that I've seen him come under fire for in this case. Have to do with releasing rittenhouse on bail. So Rhett now's got a $2 million bond. And yes, that was crowd sourced from right wing garbage monsters. And I appreciate when we talked about the judge in Detroit, looking at sanctions who was like, you know, Sidney Powell, if you crowd fund the sanctions, I will include that in the note to the referring agencies with respect to your disbarment. That is somebody who is more cognizant of the social role that these people play. In the abstract, when you're talking about just, should you release an 18 year old with no criminal background, no prior history who is being charged with first degree reckless homicide, a $2 million bond is in line with what you might expect. So released him on bond and then there was a subsequent dust up in which rittenhouse was moved his lawyer said to a safe house. That's always seemed like nonsense to me. But in other words, the address didn't match up with the address on the court. And we talked about it. And the prosecutor said, well, let's get a bench warrant and revoke the bond and bring him in and hold him in pre trial detention. And the judge said, quote, to issue a warrant now for a defendant who has appeared at every hearing, I'd be breaking the law and I'm not gonna do it. So again, if you were 100% in the tank for the prosecution, you might have come out the other way on those rulings. It seems like there's a lot that you can complain about on both sides, right? So cantankerous 75 year old white dude who's been on the bench for four decades with everything that sort of implies. And I've practiced sadly. In front of a lot of these, you know, from a lot of judges who were like that, I know the type well. I don't think reading between the lines, I don't think that either side is looking at this assignment and going. This one's on our side. Again, yeah. I could be wrong. There's a lot of opacity here. It knows his defense attorney's like, ah, they call him the hammer. Damn, we got the hammer on. No, yeah. That scene and everything. Yeah. I'm gonna continue to watch. There's certainly are things that I would that I would be nervous about. I thought the there's a little bit of the language that makes me kind of arch my eyebrow a little bit. But what I would say is I would say we do not have evidence right now that I would say is even slightly probative of suggesting a bias one way or the other. Not to suggest that that's not there, but I would say certainly the nonstop you've had four days by the time you hear this of the judges and the tank for rittenhouse, how can we move to recuse him and move for a change of like that's not going to happen?.
"rittenhouse" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"What the judge said was, he can demonize them if he wants if he thinks it will win points with the jury. Right. And that's just a way of a 75 year old judge who's presided over an awful lot of criminal trials, including high profile murder and homicide cases saying it would be kind of weird to spend your closing arguments demonizing the victims here. But hey, if he's going to do that and he's proven that they were arsonist Ryan rioters and looters, I'm not going to exclude that right now in limiting. By the way, you may see this motion renewed based on what actually comes out during the trial. Keep an eye on. But at the moment that that was denied, it prompted a really, really good lawyerly argument from binger. And he said, your honor, this seems to me like a double standard. He said, quote, if I were to count the number of times that you've admonished me not to call someone a victim during a trial. It would be in the thousands. And remember, right? He's the assistant district attorney. Yeah, he practices in front of this judge all the time, right? He's like, the terms that I'm identifying here, such as rioters, looters, arsonists, are as loaded, if not more loaded than the term victim. So good lawyerly argument that says, hey, if I can't call them a victim, they shouldn't be able to call them. Rioters, looters, arsonists. And that's when the judge said, no, that's not. I reject that comparison. The word victim is a loaded loaded word that got covered in the press, that sort of thing. Really, that would have been a good time to say the question is what level of proof comes out throughout the trial as to whether they were actually involved in these things? Instead, the judge was just like, yeah, yeah. I get it. Nice try, but I don't think this is a double standard. Victim is out because victim is always out and rider Luger arsonist can be in if that's proven at the trial. Would I have preferred at the other shore? I would have preferred a ruling the other way. But but I think once you understand that, all of a sudden, now the stories kind of fit into a pattern that makes some more sense. I want to talk about something that was also a part of the motion eliminate that has not been covered anywhere because I find this very, very puzzling. And it has to do with the video, the Facebook video that, you know, I might call the the we appreciate you or the bottle video, right, that shows the cops throwing water bottles to Kyle rittenhouse and say, hey, we appreciate you guys. Yeah. The prosecutor, binger, moved in lemonade to exclude that video in its entirety. He gave this justification. He said, I'm concerned that this is going to be turned into a trial over what law enforcement should or shouldn't have done that night, and I don't think that's what this court or this trial should be deciding. Now, that's interesting, right? Again, he's a career prosecutor of crimes like this. I'm a civil lawyer who talks into a microphone. So maybe his judgment is way better than mine. But I would think that being able to show that video would be relevant to proving the elements of the first degree reckless homicide. Because remember, you have to show that he had circumstances which show utter disregard for human life. Well, one of the ways in which you might show his utter disregard for human life is, if everyone around him is sort of egging him on and saying, oh yeah, good thing you're here to help us clean up the streets. I don't know. So I don't know. I think I maybe see the logic here and again, there's no disputing that he killed two people injured a third. That's obviously not up for debate. It's just a typical like, well, was it a self defense thing? Or was it not? And I wonder if the prosecutor is thinking, I don't want that video where the police are kind of siding with it. I don't want to make him seem like he's on the side of justice, you know? Because that might make you feel like it's more of a self defense thing if you're a juror. Interestingly enough your ruling is rather similar to what judge Schroeder said. He said, I'm not going to allow you to admit the video for the substance of it. Here was this really, quote, I would not let it that the video. Be used to prove that the entire police presence on that evening appreciated mister rittenhouse's behavior, or his presence. Relevance is another matter. If police tell him, it's a good thing you people are here, given the state of lawlessness that's existing, is that something that's influencing the defendant and emboldening him in his behavior, that would seem to me to be an argument for relevance. So yeah, you can use that to probe into written house's mindset, but you can't use it to say the police approved of his actions. Okay. Then I decided I would pull up everything I could find. About this judge, Bruce Schroeder, right? Just try and figure out because this is kind of ambiguous. And I would like to know, right? Like does he have this thumb on the scale one way or the other? And again, you know, notice, particularly among, you know, sort of our left are left leaning audience, right? Like all cops are bastards and all prosecutors are cops up until it's, you know, somebody you actually want prosecutor. Yeah. So Schroeder was appointed by a democratic governor in 1983. He's 75, right? So yes, obviously one young judge compared to all the other ones. Right. You know, you'd love this to be in the hands of a 30 year old African American woman. It's the hands of an old white guy. That's a minus. But appointed by a democratic governor in 83. He was then elected in 84, reelected in 2014, ran unopposed. His term expires 2026. In reading local Wisconsin newspapers, the best that I can find is I'm going to share a couple of these. He's referred to as no nonsense. And there's a sense that he is kind of prosecution. So I'm going to walk through both of those. And I've got the links that put in the show notes. But this is from Wisconsin tribune. Schroeder's no nonsense reputation is well known of criminal defense attorneys. He's not intimidated by the spectacle in the media involvement in this case or the high stakes. He's essentially denied almost every pre trial motion by both sides and really focusing the parties on what happened the night of the shootings that came from local criminal defense attorney Dan Adams. Prior to the rittenhouse trial, the most high profile trial that judge Schroeder had was the Mark Jensen homicide trial in 2008..