-- Ya, in the first few seconds I mispronounced Jacob Blake's name. FML. I'll try to fix. -- I didn't mean to suggest that the gun crossed state lines. My point was actually the opposite: people were making a big deal about Rittenhouse or his gun "crossing state lines" when it probably didn't matter to the provocation analysis. Even if that had been the case, it probably wasn't a crime or tort that could have served as the predicate for provocation. -- "Being attacked" does not automatically mean you can use deadly force in self-defense. Your force must be proportionate and reasonable; you cannot use deadly force "unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself." -- By that same token, unarmed people can generate such a fear; being unarmed doesn't necessarily mean no one can ever use deadly force against you (sorry for the double negatives!).
@@walkingonmygrave welcome to the new castle doctrine, where someone can go to a school with a gun, and kill people if they try to detain him, for carrying a murder tool in a place of learning.
@@walkingonmygrave Not only that, the fact that you can use self-defense after provoking the situation is nuts. It can lead to planned murders. And let's not start talking about vigilantism. This case can set a really dangerous precedent.
The 2nd and 3rd who got shot thought Kyle was an active shooter, they were using their right to self defence to stop him but that doesn't matter. Their lives don't matter even though Kyle fled the scene all because "sEcOnD aMmEnDmEnT". The US is messed up, and all the people from the UK I've spoken with agree from what I've heard that Kyle murdered at least the second man.
@@walkingonmygrave can't do fed gun trafficking due to the gun never actually crossing state lines. Also the school zone thing is a stretch, but may be plausible. I doubt the DA would go for it.
I still can’t believe one of the first questions the prosecution asked Kyle is why he invoked his fifth amendment right to silence after being arrested
@@MrBigTrey Yes, you can be questioned if you take the stand and (since you're under oath) have to answer the questions. But Binger tried to utilize Rittenhouse's post-arrest silence on the issue (IE not making a statement to the cops/a few sentences he said to the media when he wasn't in jail) as justification for a certain line of questioning. No one has to make statements after they've been arrested which is why the judge shit a brick when he tried to go down that line of questioning. Lawyers can't even mention post-arrest silence since it's such a big deal. TLDR: Totally good to question someone on the stand, super bad to question someone as to why they didn't talk about something when not under oath/in public.
@@chadcastillo2008 the worst part was they tried to make it seem like him using his rights (that the cops read to you) was a bad thing. It was an awful job of trying the case in every respect.
@@chadcastillo2008 I don't know how this works in the US, but in many British common law countries, the police caution often includes a remark that while you have the right to remain silent, if you fail to mention something when questioned that you later rely on in court, this could harm your defence.
@@uria702 Well he hung out with white supremacists beforehand and did the ok sign. That's no proof of anything, but it definitely does infer at the very least a connection to far right politics
@@rebeccatrishel Apparently not. This was pretty open and shut to me and still didn't go through. If you were to try the same thing at a white supremacist rally in Kenosha you should get away with it.
@@UndyingNero The fact that you're clueless about the law hardly make Binger a bad lawyer. But at least you're willing to admit that the Kenosha rioters were, in fact, just the Left's version of white supremacists.
In his defense, this was a case he could never win. There where so many angles of video. And when all witnesses confirm selfdefense, it's impossible. His only possible way was media and political pressure. Wich is what happend. We watched media lie, still are lying somehow.. We watched politician give their piece of mind and in some cases threats to the jury and judge. We even watched the president put pressure on this.
You mean to tell me Grosskruetz was chasing Kyle? He swore during his testimony he was merely running in Kyle's direction because Kyle was running away. He was not chasing.
I swear to god, I am not a legal professional yet and every time the prosecution spoke I found so many mistakes, leading questions and some of the worst points made in history my god as someone else said in the comments "The prosecution was the best defense lawyer Rittenhouse ever had" never heard a truer statement
@@Halmir4126 Because depending on how the mistrial is declared, the prosecution can revisit it, and that (obviously) biased judge would probably not then preside over it. A mistrial doesn't necessarily mean the accused gets away with it.
The funniest part of that to me is that some of the footage came from Federal government drones. Meaning the Feds make a habit of monitoring these riots. It's almost like they know they are going to be violent.
I do hope there's a follow-up video to this one talking about the conduct _durring_ the trial. Specifically how the Prosecution seemed to be intentionally breaking rules and dropped the ball every chance they could. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if this case is studied in law school as a prime example of what NOT to do as the Prosecution. EDIT: People seem to think I am taking a side with this comment. That's not the intention. If LE did do a follow-up video, I'd like to see him address the conduct of all relevant parties; Prosecution, Defence, Judge, Media, etc. I simply used the Prosecution as the main example because it's what stuck out the most to me, a layman who has seen a limited amount of the trial itself.
@@o76923 honest to god the prosecution would never deliberately lose a case because losing as prosecution is terrible for your career on such a high profile case.
I love how you call him a clown when you yourself don't' even know how videos are made and when they get posted, that's absolutely ironic. The only clown here is you
This is a grey area at best. Kyle refused to be read Miranda and then asked for a lawyer...then after all that proceeded to speak volumes to the police before his lawyer arrived. Is it really pleading the 5th when you proceed to word vomit all over the police anyway? I would argue that Kyle never intended to plead the fifth at all. He was simply saying he wanted to speak with a lawyer after giving his statement. Kyle, despite all of his "police training" nonsense failed to comprehend Miranda at its most basic.
@@Kevin_2435 to be fair, asking for a lawyer is invoking your Miranda rights. Silence or asking for counsel counts as that. Now talking after is kinda dumb but also a grey area because police in some cases are required to give you a warning that you are waiving Miranda rights by agreeing to explain what happened and what not.
@@BetaNurse68 They tried to warn him and he told them off saying "I want to talk, I want to talk." He never expressly waived his Miranda rights. I think the two things should be completely separate.
I beg to differ about the "non-deadly" force used by Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz, especially Huber because hit by a skateboard to the head can be deadly. There are cases where people were killed and permanently disabled because they were hit by a skateboard.
What's more important is that you don't wait for deadly force to be used against you because then you can't defend yourself. It's the threat of it being used against you, which is what was implied by Rosenbaum charging him when he was open carrying, Huber grabbing his gun, and Grosskreutz pointing his pistol at him.
But chose to drive down there knowing it was dangerous and chaotic. idc what the law says legality does not mean morality. Also tons of his statements afterwards, and things he has said has just shown he's an all around awful person and racist. No minority would have ever gotten away with this. He used his white privilege and was treating this scenario like he was in a movie. Tell me how one human being thinks he could stop all of the rioting going on by just bringing a gun and charging in with a firearm? In what world is that going to help anything? its psychotic white person main character syndrome at its finest. If all of the police, swat, and fbi couldn't stop this (which he supports heavily) how would he be able to on his own? He quite literally appointed himself judge jury and executioner, and became apart of the damage and chaos he was trying to stop and in no way did a single thing to make the situation better. How does shooting someone in the back running away stop all of the riots going on in the world? They also actually did tell Kyle to come and defend the area (was later revealed that the owner of the place lied) as well meaning he came with intention to use deadly force before even seeing the situation. an uneducated 17 year old is not your security or personal armed guard. That is shit Americans give other countries for doing. He didnt' stop the riots he just made everyone panic even more and caused even more rioting and violence.
He's trying to be super charitable, because if you go through it, what LegalEagle tries to say often could not be used in defense of Rosenbaum or Grosskreutz. huber on the other hand MAYBE even if he attacked with a weapon, he could have been argued doing it in immediate self defense of others. Rosenbaum nor Grosskreutz had that.
Ya know when steven crowder said "I'd rather see headlines like potential rapist shot in ditch rather than rapist violates woman?" Yeah that. One of those guys shot was a sex offender.
@@wastelandlegocheem A kiddie diddler at that! If you'd seen the live news broadcast that day (which I did in Canada.) you'd see the diddler picking a fight with Kyle on more than one occasion. Guess he didn't like a kid having power over him!?
@@jomaxgamez3840 its not morally faulty because Rittenhouse didn't know the man he was going to kill had an awful past. What could be considered morally faulty is this argument is only used as a diversion from the astounding amount of evidence and circumstances that night that point towards Kyle Rittenhouse going there having the intent to kill people with opposing socio-political ideologies
Some of the facts you put out are different than facts that were what was said at the trial. Such as the man that got shot in the arm said Kyle did not shoot at him until he pointed a gun at his head.
@@lupuswarrior6785 Yes it should matter on a youtube channel that has this much influence/reach and claims to review legal cases according to the trial. This was such a transparent trial with evidence available to anyone that googles it.
Kylie Rittenhouse was very lucky he was armed. Many were attacked and killed during the riots that never had a chance because they were not armed and could not escape.
@@araccoonstolemyradiator thats a funny way of saying "my IQ is below room temprature and i did not take five minutes to actually look into the case" sit down clown.
@@araccoonstolemyradiator He was standing outside businesses to prevent them from being vandalized from rioters. Something that is perfectly legal to do. All footage from the night shows rioters approaching and attacking him. He never approached or instigated a fight with anyone.
Conveniently did not show or mention that Gaige pointed his pistol and advanced on Rittenhouse before getting shot. That omission is a very big deal. Would be worth noting that Rosenbaum was threatening to cause severe bodily harm to multiple people earlier, including Rittenhouse, which is part of the self defense.
That’s when he tried to sit there and say that Kyle‘s making shit up by saying he’s making a self-aggrandizing statement. He’s glossing over the fact that many people testified to the threats and simply saying no such thing existed really.
@@ThatsaToilet it is far worse. LE wants you silenced and put in an oven to die. It is not even human like and should be sent to the same gulags it wants gun owners, libertarians, and free speech advocates sent to. I have watched it for years and and his hatred of America and freedom grows stronger each day. It will call on the stooges at the FBI to fix me or at least put me on a deplorable list.
@@AFR0MAMBA pretty sure gaige testified that he thought he saw kyle pull back the charging handle(I know kyle didn't, be he did hit the forward assist) its reasonable for gaige to assume kyle was going to shoot him. It's possible Gaige could have gotten the same verdict if he had shot kyle.
Gaige would have gotten the same verdict for sure. I don’t know why he approached him. I would have killed KR at 25 yards if I thought he was a mass shooter.
You left out the fact that Anthony Huber grabbed the barrel of his gun and tried to yank it away from him after hitting him with a skateboard while he was on the ground.
You wouldn't try to take their gun away if you believed they were an active shooter? The active shooter policy at my uni was to charge down the shooter if he entered a classroom. They're effectively enacting a typical active shooter policy.
@@Rwdphotos grabbing a firearm by the barrel and pointing it at your chest is a good way to get ventilated. Even giving Huber the benefit of the doubt that he believed he was attempting to disarm an active shooter, he bypassed the first two policies when dealing with an active shooter as outlined by the Department of Homeland Defense. First is evacuating the area, second is of you can't evacuate then hide and third as a last resort attempt to disarm the shooter. Your school didn't tell you to hunt and rush a shooter in the hallway but to do so if they entered the same classroom as you. One of the biggest issues with self defense laws is that they can become murky. Huber could have acted with every good intention but that doesn't invalidate Kyle's right to self defense. There is even a possibility that if Huber would have came out on top that he could have been sued because he would have had to prove that he believed his life was in immediate threat. That is kind of hard to prove when he had to chase the threat down.
@@Rwdphotos That’s the problem Kyle wasn’t an active shooter are you suggesting that he get punished because someone thought he was something that he wasn’t?
@@johnny.V03 it doesn't really matter if he was or wasn't; he was shooting at people, so people thought he was a shooter. If a cop got a report that there was a shooter in an area, and he comes across a guy shooting a gun at people, he's most likely going to drop the guy
This is a rather weak video -- and the wishy-washy conclusions are unjustified. Having watched through most of the trial myself, I cannot help but conclude that not only was Rittenhouse's verdict of self defense justified, it was *fully* justified -- there was *more* than enough evidence to conclude that Rittenhouse *fully* acted within the law of self defense, and even within the bounds of the law generally (except possibly for the curfew issue -- but it can be argued that, since the State government wasn't doing enough to protect the neighborhoods from rioters, even *that* was justifiable.)
@@mysteryjunkie9808 He was very much there to start trouble. A minor going to a protest they know nothing about, in a different state, with a firearm- is reckless and negligent. He’s a moron.
People keep complaining about the judge being biased, but according to reports from other lawyers that work in that district, he's that way all the time, not just in the Rittenhouse case. Personally, I'd prefer to live in a country where the judges put the burden more on the prosecution and less on the defense. I judge that is biased towards the prosecution is terrifying.
Yeah the prosecution is the state, and the state has near infinite resources for putting forth a case, giving them even more power by siding with them during a case is not cool.
@Cool Cat because the jury had the final say? Shittenhouse shouldn't have been there. And he wouldn't have been there if people didn't think rioting solved social injustices. All of those protests achieved what? Two dead and another shot? Millions in property damage and lost goods?
@Cool Cat it’s more of a standard than a bias I’d say. There are a lot of predatory practices in manipulating defendants to confess to crimes they didn’t commit or to unknowingly incriminate themselves.
@@fkujakedmyname he had a similar standard for those words as well, don't call them something you can't substantiate. And the point of the trial was to substantiate whether or not Rosenbaum and Huber were victims. The closing arguments were allowed to use the language they'd like
21:37 This is a really shit take. This is basically saying that no form of self-defense should be acceptable, and that if you were attacked and defended yourself you could be murdered because someone else thought you murdered someone. At the time, Grosskreuz was not in peril. Kyle Rittenhouse was running away. You can't argue that would be self-defense. Even IF Kyle had murdered someone, unless you witnessed it first hand and were able to either defend yourself or others in that moment, Grosskreuz would have been convicted of murder.
Idk man, I'm not an American, but it seems to me that the only reason there's any controversy over this case is because of its hyper-politicisation. I would have thought this was a pretty cut and dried case of self-defence, even if there had been a duty to retreat law in place. I don't how you could watch that footage and not conclude that Kyle was retreating and in imminent danger, if not necessarily of death, then at least of getting the shit beat out him, and he really didn't have any other options available to him.
A BLACK guy named Andrew Coffee shot at police Bc they executed a no knock warrant. He didn’t know it was police and argued self defense on a murder charge he got after the shooting. Jury acquitted him the SAME DAY AS KYLE RITTENHOUSE WAS ACQUITTED. You never heard about Andrew Coffee Bc the media never reported it because it doesn’t fit their narrative that a black guy would’ve been found guilty if they were in Kyle’s shoes that night.
The name of the person shot was Jacob Blake, not Jacob Black, for reference. It's a nitpick, but for people looking up the context to the unrest in Kenosha this could be useful.
@@spinningbackkick6021 I only watched the first few seconds of the video when I made that comment. Just something I noticed quickly and wanted to point out.
Did you know that he was attempting to hijack a car of someone who he had previously raped a couple months earlier. After being tased twice, he was attempting to leave the scene with the hijacked car when the woman said "He's got my kid. He's got my keys". A car which he had put a knife in. It doesn't seem to me like the police had that much of a choice.
@@kdsquire99 maybe you missed it, but Rittenhouse was not "acting dangerously". He didn't attack or provoke anyone. Quite the opposite actually, he was ambushed as he was using a fire extinguisher. So if you saw a parking lot full of cars lit on fire and you saw a man using a fire extinguisher to put them out, and he also so happened to have AR-15 strapped to his chest, you think you would attack him? For what reason?
@@thejesusaurus6573 That LE is smart enough to know what he is doing. By "carefully" omitting certain facts in the hopes of convincing a large enough portion of his 2+ million subscriber base that Rittenhouse is guilty, he is acting as a Propagandist by putting his political leanings over the factual evidence presented in the case. LE isn't dumb, he's smart enough to know what he is doing. Unless of course he's a really terrible Lawyer and honestly doesn't know what he's doing?
One element you neglected to mention was that the owner's testimony was contradicted by an employee who took the stand. His testimony, along with Black and Rittenhouse, states they asked for help. I have a feeling they committed perjury due to the potential financial risk of associating with Rittenhouse.
Regardless, you shouldn't be using a kid with no qualifications as armed security. Hire an actual professional with experience and relevant qualifications, especially if you have, as in this case, a reason to believe that there is an unusually high chance of a serious incident. So, regardless of whether or not he acted in self defense, he should not have been there in the first place, much less armed.
@@alexanderflack566 Let's broaden this net. NO ONE, not a single person, should have been there. There shouldn't have been a threat period. I agree, under normal circumstances I would hire professional security but it seems like that was a feasible option, especially considering the community is rather small. All in all had everyone not decided to torch a town over a justified police shooting, a child molester and domestic abuser would still be alive today.
@@alexanderflack566 there shouldn’t have been people burning buildings there. So the three people that got shot shouldn’t have been there either. In fact, they had a lesser moral position to be there than Rittenhouse, considering that Rittenhouse wasn’t an aggressor but a third party volunteering to provide aid.
I agree with you. But I also think that about a lot of the protestors. I don't care what the cause is, we don't need the kind of guys who engaged that kid.
@@alexanderflack566 The 1st amendment protects Rittenhouse's right to be there. Whether he should or should not have been there is a moral question, not a legal one and thus has no place in this argument. Btw none of those vandals should've have been there either, wouldnt you agree? They also shouldn't have attacked Rittenhouse, wouldn't you agree? Lots of should've would've here.
In one of the Southern States there was a black man whose house was raided by a swat team that did not properly identify themselves he defended his home from who he thought were intruders. He was found not guilty on all counts. Because he believed with an unreasonable doubt that this armed team was there to kill him and his family.
I appreciate this video. But I would have liked to see more analysis of the trial itself and some of the major mistakes the lawyers made on both sides. A lot of people are saying the prosecution did a terrible job and I’d like to see what you think about that.
He did, check it out! In his video about the controversy around the judge, he goes over the many mistakes that the prosecution makes. It did seem to be lacking on the defense's mistakes though
He obviously didn’t watch the trial. So that’s a big ask. Although, I suppose it’s possible he did watch the trial. Which makes this “analysis” even more egregious.
Curious that Gaige Grosskreutz pointing his pistol at Rittenhouse was left out of the "simplification" of the situation. Something which he previously lied about and famously admitted to on the stand.
15:29 “Reasonable minds can differ…”. This is what biased commentators say when the obvious truth is right in front of them. “All he (Rosenbaum) did was chase him and throw something at him and jump toward him”. Yeah can’t imagine why that would be perceived as a threat…. 🙄
You Wrote “All he (Rosenbaum) did was chase him and throw something at him and jump toward him”. Yeah can’t imagine why that would be perceived as a threat…. 🙄 Reply He also threatened to kill him if he caught him alone.
I think you too easily brushed aside the preceding incidents that Kyle Rittenhouse “self-servingly” testified to. It was not only his testimony, but that of multiple other witnesses which stated that Rosenbaum had threatened to kill them if he caught them alone at any point that night. And the fact that when he turned around and pointed the gun at Rosenbaum, he was being CHASED through a parking lot at night by a rowdy individual who had just threatened to murder him an hour earlier. He was being chased before the “bag of clothes that landed nowhere near him” was ever even thrown. I’m left leaning in my politics as well LegalEagle, but I feel you may be letting your bias in a bit more to this case than you realize.
Also not mentioned is the difference between ‘probable cause’ vs ‘reasonable suspicion’. Citizens can’t really assume a crime has been committed, and be legally protected when acting on that assumption. If some random person says “he shot someone” and you kill them, you’re not acting in self defence. You pretty much need to be certain a crime was committed, and that effectively requires you were witness to the crime. During the trial it was shown Grosskreutz had no idea what happened between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum. It’s reasonable to assume Huber was the same.
I see what you’re saying but as he points out multiple times, the reaction from rittenhouse needs to be reasonable and equal to the threat essentially. If i said to you “i’m going to kill you” then proceed to grab a stuffed animal, a reasonable response would not be to shoot me. In my option that applies to a lot of what took place. He was being chased by an unarmed man, that isn’t enough of a reason to kill him. Neither is the fact that he might have said he would kill him. It was rittenhouse’s own doing of possessing of a firearm that he then used as his basis to claim self defense. If you take out the gun, i don’t believe he gets off. Say for example he was just there with a sign that disagreed with the protestors and he was told “i will kill you” then later on he’s being chased by this guy, finds some sort of blunt object and beats the guy to death. In my opinion that would not be considered self defense.
So you gonna sit here on the internet and say the dude that hit him in the head with a skateboard and the fool that tried to drop kick Rittenhouse WERENT using deadly force? Seriously?
META-lawyers is like magicians or rather illusionists... If I walk up to this lawyer, or lets say Bill Gates, and swing my skateboard to their heads with all my power... I would be punished like if I used deadly force... But if some protester attack an white boy it is something different right... Uber and Unter Menchen......
@@tylerrhoades4049 It doesn't have to be deadly force. It has to be imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Getting kicked in the face while on the ground or hit with a skateboard when the person wielding it has the intent to cause damage can both, in a reasonable person's mind, constitute death or great bodily harm.
That's because the prosecution had nothing to work with, apart from sleazy insinuation and dirty tricks. People should be concerned that they will employ the same tactics in every other case.
I'm not so sure that, in an alternate reality where any of those three killed Rittenhouse instead, self-defense would have worked. In each one of those scenarios, they approached Rittenhouse and attacked him first, when any reasonable person would have avoided a so-called active shooter with a rifle. Just my thoughts on that thought experiment at the end.
Yeah but the moment Rittenhouse points his rifle at any of them threatening to fire on them they would likely enter the selfdefense area again. Running away from a gunman is more often than not less viable than to shoot them first if you already have your gun out.
@@DiabloDBS Wrong. You cannot argue self defense when you are charging someone aggressively, including grabbing their weapon, kicking them, hitting them with a skateboard, etc. especially if Kyle was running away when this all happened. Once Kyle was on the ground and he was surrounded on all sides, dodging physical attacks on all sides that is 100% self defense all day.
Well I do have one thing to ask as you said in this video that you classified being hit with a skateboard as nonlethal; whereas it and the flat bar alongside the exposed nut are HEAVILY known for skull fractures and heavy hand/arm injuries while trying to defend from it because it becomes a gigantic lever multiplying force and a deadly weapon. Would that not be the rough equivalent as being attack with a tire iron or similar object?
And for everyone blabbing on about the first guy being unarmed and having only thrown a garbage bag; do you think after hearing that gunshot while running away that Kyle would stop and have to check that the guy chasing him wasn’t the one who shot while being chased by numerous other people while one of those people was actually armed?
A skate board is a deadly weapon, so is a wooden baseball bat. People are just trying to justify the actions of child predators and criminals. Oxymoron I know
@@timkramar9729 ya you can, but not when there’s a mob of people that would stop you to death and steal your rifle. Go back to your mothers basement now
At 14:02, you forgot to mention that he testified that Rittenhouse didn't shoot at him until he lowered his hands and pointed the gun at Rittenhouse the second time
@@DK-ed7be dude, come on. Cut the guy some slack, no matter what he does or doesn’t say people are gonna berate him. While I’m sure his political views affect his view, maybe give him the benefit of the doubt. -this coming from a conservative
That’s because legal eagle is biased. He says so many dumb things here. Hell, so many wrong things, like Gaige would be defending himself if he shot Kyle, which is just not true given that Kyle was running to police.
What I learnt from watching this: LegalEagle didn’t watch the trial 😂 yeah, I’m going back to RekeitaLaw. Omitting from the facts that Gaige pointed his gun at Kyle before Kyle shot him, or that Mike.Rosenbaum had his hand over the barrel of Kyles gun when he fired and had threatened to kill Kyle the previous day, is pretty inexplicable and crucial to impressions. Neutral my ass.
That's not the point. The point is that "reasonableness" is subjective and can change depending on the jury. He laid out the questions and basically it's up to the Jury to decide how they are answered.
"This case is murky at best" says the guy after showing one of the most well documented and clear cut self defense cases in recent history. your bias is showing as usual
I was recently on jury duty, something I hope to never have to do again, and at the end walked away thinking that both the defense AND the prosecution had done bad jobs. This was something the whole jury admitted to feeling while in deliberation. My only advice... try to avoid any situation where you might have to be on trial because you never know if a bad lawyer will get you sent to prison because of something you did not do.
My last jury duty was so annoying. The defense lawyer kept putting words in his client and witness' mouths the entire time. We even made fun of him in the jury room while we were having lunch.
I use to work with a guy who, during the Boston Marathon bombing, said he wished he would have been there because he would have shot the guy. I was never able to convince him that randomly shooting when you have no idea what is going on is an awful thing to do. It creates more panic, puts more lives in danger and makes the police's job a lot harder because all of a sudden, they don't know who is on what side, they just have groups of people firing at random at people they think are the perpetrator. Its a recipe for disaster.
I'm guessing people all over the world have the "hero" complex, thinking force is the way to solve stuff. Only thing is, most other places of the world know not to make it easy for the heroes to be to get a gun. Still don't understand north american mentality, tbh. I feel like when you have had a "right" for a long time, getting it removed feels like an assault, even if said "right" actually harms you.
I was living in Boston when the bombing happened the fall out was chaotic enough if your friend did this he'd probably be in jail because he'd have most likely shot an innocent we didn't know who the perps were until they themselves brought attention to themselves by getting in a firefight with the cops.
“The guy” is working in the Wisconsin legislature now, apparently. The instructions are basically “shooting people is bay, yo, so we want to encourage it with this insane law.”
@@ismaelibanez9545 So in the frontier cultures of north America the natives and the wildlife were very dangerous and would require the need of protection by your own means, practically this was necessary and would follow into the revolution. The intention of the second amendment is pretty obvious that it was both a stake of decentralization in the polity sense but further is a populist sentiment on the liberal ideal. The right to bear arm's is basically a clause made by people who're essentially aware of history and aware that any state no matter how nobly concieved must have the necessity to take matters into their own hands. We would warn against this generally, and most who adhere to the right generally do but it was primarily something so when the state fails as it often tends to do that the people would have a right to practically act in their own best interest.
The fact that they asked him on the stand if he plays Call of Duty was laughable. For all we know the prosecutor also plays Call of Duty, question was 100% irrelevant
you missed the part where Anthony Huber can be seen trying to take the gun from Kyle. You played it over and over, but didn't comment on that aspect or that Grosskruetz didnt get shot until he pointed his gun at Kyle's head. Or the corner report of burn marks on Rosenbaums hand from his hand grabbing the barrel.
@@harrikarppinen3749 You’re acting as if Kyle just shot into the crowd Willy nilly. Which obviously wasn’t the case at all. Kyle only shot people who actively attacked him. Rosenbaum chased him into a corner and grabbed his weapon, after having threatened him and multiple people throughout the night. Huber hit him in the head with a skateboard and Grosskruetz feigned surrender, pulled a pistol on him, and was shot as soon as Kyle saw the gun. Grosskruetz stated multiple times that he intended to shoot Kyle. The evidence was clear from day one up to now, and you still chose to ignore all of it and make stuff up.
Like your videos, but I disagree with your assessment that Grosskreutz could have used the self defense argument. He is on video chasing down Rittenhouse. Not sure he could argue he feared for his life
good point! I was thinking maybe Legal Eagle made a good point, but what you said is true too. I really didn't like that Grosskreutz guy. Seems like a real tool. And to fake-surrender so you can try to kill someone, just leaves a bad taste.
@N Fels Walking around an active riot without being part of the many regulated, citizen's militias willing to make a blind eye to the fact he was under 18. A vigilante with a gun is a vigilante with a gun, he's asking for it (unless he was part of the, I repeat, many citizen's militias in place that night, he could've tried to put that fire down while being covered by a militiamen squad, you know, Escalation and engagement? CONservatives talk a lot of macho crap about war and weapons, but seems that they're tactically Rworded, Meal Team Six is real). He wanted to play Johny Hero Vigilante in a situation where he knew he could get away with murdering a leftist/brown person, because he's been indoctrinated to be a Brown Shirt, virtually since birth, just like the vast majority of American kids growing and conforming to a CONservative. There's nuance to self defense, unless you want to work under the "look at what you made me do" logic, which is consistent on how CONservatives are abusive by nature.
@@trip2belize missed the biggest nuance of all: court of law does not prove you “innocent.” It may find you “guilty” or “not guilty.” “Not guilty” is not the same as “innocent”. Kyle is not innocent, but was found not guilty of the the charges he was tried for. That does not preclude him from being a huge idiot for going to an active riot with a firearm.
Objection - misstating the record. I think it's important to note that although the owners of car source (the Khindri brothers) did indeed testify in court that they didn't ask Kyle or anyone else to protect their business, there was conflicting testimony in court by Rittenhouse, Black and Smith. Additionally, at least according to the defense, there is apparently at least some indication in the police's report from when the interviewed the Khindri's that they believed the Khindri's were lying about not asking Kyle or anyone else to protect the business, possibly because they were concerned about possible civil liability. And finally, we know for certain that at least 1 of the Khindri brothers perjured himself on the stand, when he testified that he "had never met, talked to or even heard of Kyle Rittenhouse", however, there is photo evidence of Kyle, Dominick Black and Nick Smith (in addition to several other "militia members") talking, hanging out and taking photos together at the dealership on the day of the shooting.
I mean when discussing duty to retreat and self defense.... three men got shot and not a single one of them was running away from Kyle. Kyle shot three people, he was running away from all three of them.
The last person he shot was aware he was an active shooter fleeing the scene. If he was really afraid of an armed man he would've disarmed him after shooting him. That's ignoring the rending first aid or calling 911 immediately....
@@Novellization no, the last person thought Kyle was working for the police (per his own testimony), that's probably why he decided to try executing Kyle. Also you should probably look up the definition of active shooter, Kyle doesn't even come close.
@@Novellization McGinnis, while rendering first aid to Rosenbaum, was struck in the back of the head by one of the rioters, and you're proposing Rittenhouse should have stayed there to also render first aid? To what end? So he could be beat to death by the rioters?
@@cormoran2303 the actual testimony is that he thought that would be, and didn't attempt to render aid or call real first aid responders. He did run to call his friend, then his parents and finally to chit chat with "like minded" people he met that night. After you lawfully shoot a man, you stay to render aid and wait for law enforcement. Did you not get this info at CC class? Wait lemme guess....
Hey, remember when that smug, pompous Binger aimed a rifle at the jury with his finger on the trigger? Lets not forget. As of this comment he is still a DA in Kenosha, despite his incompetence.
Didn't even touch on the fact that Prosecution changed it's strategy at the very end of the trial? Provocation wasn't even a thing till they brought in that Drone video and tried to pretend you could see him point his gun.... strangely enough they didn't feel the need to call the witness that they were claiming he pointed the gun at, lol.
@@dallascopp4798 so did everyone else including the prosecution lol. That claim has been debunked by sever "tech" people showing that "kyles arm" was there several frames before Kyle was aka, what they were claiming was his arm was not
"Grosskreutz then puts his hands up while armed with a pistol". But he then lowered his arms, and levelled his (illegally owned and carried) pistol at Kyle Rittenhouse. That was the point at which Kyle Rittenhouse shot him.
I don't think the "illegally owned and carried" part is relevant, seeing as the legality of ownership doesn't have any effect on whether Kyle Rittenhouse was justified (since there's no way he even could've known), and more importantly, because gun control is wrong and fundamentally illegitimate.
@@NathanTAK "because gun control is wrong and fundamentally illegitimate." There are quite a few laws I think are wrong, but that doesn't mean I can simply ignore them. Also the prosecution argued (unsuccessfully) that Kyle Rittenhouse had an illegal gun, in an attempt to weaken his defence, so what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
@@BedsitBob You don't have to ignore them, but I would argue that it's poor form to go out of your way to call attention to someone's status as having violated a law you consider immoral, unless your point in doing so is to criticize it. After all, there is no _shame_ in breaking an unjust law. Also I'm interested in the "sauce for the goose" thing; it's _"good_ for the goose" where I live (Pacific Northwest), and interdialectic variation is fascinating.
@@NathanTAK Yet the prosecution drew attention to Kyle Rittenhouse (allegedly) breaking that same unjust law. As for "what's sauce for the goose", it's a British saying, which I presume comes from the idea you put sauce on goose, when eating it.
I think Rittenhouse's unequivocal attempts to retreat in combination with Grosskreutz's testimony will make it impossible for a reasonable person to conclude that he did not act in self-defense.
Literally no way a reasonable person sees this as anything other than self defense. Anybody claiming other wise is just showing you to stay away from them
Bashing someone over the head 3 times with a skateboard is most certainly deadly force, not even arguably. You'd have to have never actually held a skateboard to think that's debatable. It'll maybe hurt you a bit more than a baseball bat by virtue of being more awkward to hold, but it's essentially the same for the person you're whacking.
It's like the people who think that screwdrivers aren't deadly weapons. If it can be used to kill, then it's potentially a deadly weapon. It depends on the intent of the user, and Huber's intent is pretty obvious.
I know your time was limited but I wish you would have addressed the prosecutor's bringing up Rittenhouse remaining silent or hopefully in future video. For me that was jaw dropping. There other things the prosecutor spent time on like video games and stressing that Rittenhouse had an AR-15 not some other weapon.
@@avatarblood0 malicious. Several former proxecuters have said that incompetence isn't an excuse because it's such a basic thing for prosecuters to follow. They wanted to throw the trial to get another chance at it after they messed up so many times with their witnesses.
Well the AR15 should speak to intent, insofar as choice of weapon suggests the work. When people say they have an AR15 for home defense, I laugh because it's an anti-personnel rifle for marksmen at intermediate ranges. It also throws hot brass around, to bounce off the walls and hit you in the face. A decent revolver would therefore be a better choice- and if you're fool enough to go room to room looking for an early night, at least a revolver offers far less leverage coming around a corner for a burglar to wrestle it away.
Please include the sound in videos. Kyle running away yelling “friendly friendly friendly, then Rosenbaum yelling “you won’t do shit” and “F**** you” as gunfire is going off and he lunges at Kyle. Then the crowd that knows he is running to police literally visible down the street decide to take law into own hands and chase him yelling “GET Him, CRANIUM HIM!” I can see not including Kyle’s testimony, but it wasn’t his lone testimony that corroborate Rosenbaums overtly aggressive behavior. There is multiple other witnesses describing him saying he would kill and rip hearts out. There is footage of him that night setting fires and screaming “N*******s” in the faces of the people standing there. How can you omit that crucial information? Threats matter especially when they appear to be acted out.
Because this is a youtube video, not a courtroom itself. And I'm pretty sure LE would rather not get demonitized or have any other disciplinary actions taken by RUclips
@@fangsabre Then don't talk about the case. No point in discussing it if its going to be one sided and leave out very crucial details that apply to it.
@@fangsabre ...and you accused me of deflection!?! When facts are presented it seems you are the one who deflects or makes excuses. Are sure you are not studying law at the same college as Binger went to?
@@scrateswpo1659 I'd say it's a decent enough topic of discussion if we can avoid getting heated about it. Learning from the past helps us craft a better future.
One of the problems of gaige being able to claim self defense is he was chasing a retreating ‘threat’ this makes him the provoker now. He never retreated. As soon as Kyle took his gun off gaige, gaige point his gun at Kyle. (Admited in his own testimony) at that point Kyle shot him.
Duty to retreat? Did you watch the video or trial at all? Rittenhouse literally spent the entire time retreating, and was repeatidly attacked. Imagine lying on the ground and someone kicks you in the head - would you defend yourself, or just stop and wait for the next kick?
I am no lawyer and this is not legal advice, but there is no duty to retreat according to Brown v. US, though the standard on what is considered being “attacked” may need to be more clearly defined.
@@tylerrhoades4049 no, this was also the argument the defense made in The Rittenhouse case. Fists and skateboards can absolutely cause great bodily harm and even death
@@tylerrhoades4049 Legal Eagle is a commercial litigator. He is not a criminal defense attorney. Dozens of criminal defense attorneys on RUclips have covered this case and have made it very clear(which they don't need to, because FBI statistics are readily available) that skateboards are can and do cave skulls in, that a single punch can easily cause permanent brain damage, and that the mere act of threatening the use of hands is in and of itself considered an indefensible act in this case.
i disagree on the point about grosskreutz. i doubt he could have had a successful self defence charge like rittenhouse did, because during the trial, he admitted to the defence that rittenhouse did not point or fire his gun at grosskreutz until grosskreutz had pulled out his own gun and was aiming it at rittenhouse.
@@Slade951 I know more than a few liberal gun owners that would take him up on that challenge and kick it square in its elite smug supercilious face and break those expensive veneers off in its face. Actual hard working liberal workers that have no use for bougie cognac sipping elitists that have no real connection to men and women that have worked long hard hours without a silver spoon in a their privileged pie holes.
@@1dirkmanchest make/save/invest some money fam. most of them didnt get there by sittin on they ass. if you work hard enough, you can become an "elite" and you probably wouldnt have those violent thoughts goin thru ya head
The fact that Rosenbaum had repeatedly been threatening to kill everybody at Car Source obviously didn't help his chances of staying alive . And it helped the Jury in determining self defence by Rittenhouse.
I don't get this rationale as if anything this seems to reflect the opposite. I'd say it did push the jury in their verdict even though that doesn't make sense for other reasons, but nobody else was trying to kill the guy and if anything they were just staying away from the guy. The other victims were responding to the shooting of Rosenbaum which goes against this line of thinking.
@@dustynesmith You don't understand why a jury might have found a kid used reasonable force in defending himself by shooting dead a convicted pedo who spent all night threatening to kill him and then chased him down a street and tried to rip his gun out of his hands?
I like your videos usually. But your unwillingness to choose a side hete shows your bias. Not as good a look as you think it is. You left out multiple facts.
@@antuanperez426 I think it's quite obvious that although he doesn't like Kyle, since morally he shouldn't have been there and he likely went with the intention of shooting people, but he knows Kyle didn't commit murder in a legal sense. How is it picking a side against somebody if you agree with that person's side?
@lastrolo dude went to what he knew was a violent leftist riot and started walking around with a gun. Idk about you, but if I walked into the Capitol on January 6th and started waving my gun around, I'm sure I'd get attacked extremely fast since I wouldn't be trusted to not shoot at my political opponents. Don't get me wrong either, the bad people in this were definitely the rioters and they should have gotten worse legal punishments than they did. That doesn't mean he should have gone there though.
@@araccoonstolemyradiatorwhy are you dumb? He was already there before the riot , he was there because it was his community and the onky evidence of him wanting to shoot protesters its a post were he says he would like to shoot shoplifters something he never did.
This comment feels like the quickest way to say “I was too dumb to understand everything the lawyer said, I just need an answer so I can validate my own beliefs.”
The entire point of this channel is to explain intrude legal terminology for people who are not within that circle and not privy to that sort of information. If this is your first video on his channel, go watch more and you’ll see the same formula. He provided us with the legalese in a way we could understand. Just because your attention span is the same as a Goldfish, doesn’t mean all of us have that too. Shut up and watch the video
@@itsjohnnyr8560 except this is with his personal bias to get internet points, rather than giving his viewers the correct and important details of the case. Sure its good for business, but hes leaving out key details so much that he tried to justify Kyle's attackers with self defense
22:20 Objection Misstating the evidence. The problem with the Grossgreits(spelling?) argument is kyle was actively running away from him at this point and no longer presenting an immediate danger and arguably has regained his innocence at this point in the confrontation. This is apparent by Gross himself running up to kyle and questioning him as he ran away. No reasonable person would run up to someone who they thought was an active shooter or a danger to themselves and angrily demand answers. Its just not reasonable.
Again, it goes both ways. In the Tucson shooting of Gabby Giffords, unarmed people approached and subdued the shooter. Is that "unreasonable"? What reasonable unarmed person would approach an armed person who has already demonstrated the intent to kill? As for attempting to subdue versus angry questioning, the attempt to, you know, "ask questions first, shoot later" is arguably more reasonable over the inverse. And the intent was to question, not self-defense. That would, at worst, constitute provocation which brings us back to the arguments that supported Rittenhouse, but for the other party. In other words, any justification for Rittenhouse's conduct can arguably be granted to any of the parties involved. They all could have legally killed one another. It was a free-for-all -- fun to think about. Thanks for trying to drop a formal objection in your RUclips comment hot take though. Your law degree and bar certification will be arriving via certified mail in six to eight weeks.
Grosskreutz became the provocateur when he initiated an interaction with a retreating Rittenhouse. He pulled a gun out after chasing Kyle. Therefore he needed to apply that duty to retreat as the provocateur before deadly force would be acceptable, which he most certainly did not meet.
It could be argued as reasonable. There are lots of circumstances of people confronting and challenging active shooters or shooters in general. Especially if it's a dynamic situation and multiple people (who might be the potential shooter) are carrying weapons.
I can't believe people are still arguing about this. There are hours of footage that clearly show what happened. Choosing not to see the truth in those videos is just denial at this point.
@@Trottelheimer its selfdefense. the only reason you can not see that is if you are politically entrenched and see rittenhouse as your opponent. in both situations, rittenhouse tried to remove him self from said situation. in both situations, he was attacked first. in both situations, he had to fear for his life or great bodily harm. moraly and legaly, its self defense.
Rittenhouse had no business being there. He shot three people. He didn't try to give medical attention to the three people he shot. He fled area after shooting three people. He failed to turn himself in to police after shooting three than crossed a state line after committing felonies to go home. Rittenhouse should of gone to prison 10 years minimum
@@puellamservumaddominum6180 rittenhosue had more reason being there then any of the people he shot. he did not try to give medical attention to the people he shot because there was a hostile mob that just tried to kill him, remember? he did not flee the area but was running towards police to turn him self in (we have that on video). that they told him in no uncertain terms to leave is not his fault (we have that on video as well). once home, he did turn him self in. and.. all of these things having quite literally nothing to do with the question of 'was that self defense?'
@@TheLoki7281 so you really think Rittenhouse couldn't of used his phone to call police? I am sure they would of paid attention if he said he just shot three people.
@@tanimal3964 "allowed him to surrender" after attempting to fire a shot at him but missing and instead firing wildly around a crowd of people? Damn dude you will twist reality to whatever you need, wont you?
@@rythe24 Hey man, I've got to admit that, since I'm not American, we may have different definitions here. For you I'm sure that firing rounds at point blank range and missing the target while hundreds of people are around you is just another Sunday morning. To me, over here in reality, that's firing wildly.
@@Imbalanxd Well thank you for informing us of your arrogance in your ignorance. Firing two shots at someone that kicks you in the face while you're lying in the street is not firing wildly.
21:38 Grosskreutz was not as justifiable as Rittenhouse - he pursued Kyle. Kyle- escaping Grosskreutz- chasing So no I wouldn’t be happy with Grosskreutz being acquitted.
I wouldn't be happy with Grosskreutz being acquitted either, due to that chase as you mentioned, but you could imagine his testimony including him turning and running from Kyle in the moments before getting shot, thus demonstrating an attempt at a retreat. A lot happens in a few seconds, and if Grosskreutz shot Kyle after Kyle shot him, it would be pretty easy to defend as self defense. Like Legal Eagle said, today's trend toward vigilantism is bad. Showing up to a confrontation with a gun and claiming you were forced to use it in self defense is a dangerous trend, but it clearly wins cases.
@@diggoran Showing up with a gun isn't provocation. If you're stupid enough to try and take a gun from someone, you are, by law, arming yourself. Guns are the biggest deterrent as they are the greatest equalizer. If people like "Legal" Eagle here, want to stop people from protecting property, maybe, I don't know, let police do their job instead of standing by.
Provocation would play a pretty big part there. However, it is technically possible for a jury to find that Grosskreutz did not provoke the incident. Jurys are always a crapshoot. You never know what you get and what they think about.
So Grosskreutz chased Rittenhouse down, after illegally concealing a firearm, and you as a lawyer say his situation is interchangeable with Kyle's actions? That Grosskreutz felt his life was in danger due to someone running away from him? Someone who never attacked him? Could you clarify how both of thier actions that night would be justified if you have the perspective of Kyle's innocence?
The fact that Kyle didn't shoot Grosskreutz, or anyone else on his way to the police is a pretty solid clue that Kyle wasn't an active shooter just blasting people.
I don't know if a dangerous idiot child with a gun should have been there. He absolutely should have had his gun taken away and sadly nobody managed it safely.
Stop playing nice buddy. Ran from assailants for over a mile and shot once he was knocked down, cornered, and on the verge of being snuffed... oh and its all recorded. Beyond clear cut self defense and a first year associate would see that.
Rittenhouse runs, object thrown at him, points gun but does not fire, runs again, turns just before his assailant reaches him, fires. That's just the first encounter and as far as I'm concerned he showed incredible discipline there. Tried to run and his attacker asked to be shot. The idea that any of this is unclear is why we have such division in our country right now. We can't even agree on who is the aggressor when one guy is running away and the other is chasing him.
Oh, the people who think Kyle is guilty know damn well that he was being chased and was legally justified in defending himself, they just don't care because their devotion to socialism/radical leftist ideology is far more important than their appreciation of the US's legal justice system, which, in their eyes, is a corrupt system worthy of tearing down. They think he was guilty simply because he was, in their eyes, trying to stop people from achieving racial equity by burning poor and minority communities to the ground.
@@jonathanw1019 I don't know that I agree with that. Certainly, that describes why they want to believe in his guilt. That said, I think they actually do believe he was not legally justified because they are being lied to and are too lazy/uninterested in learning the truth.
"Discipline" would've actually been him staying at home and doing chores with his idiot mom. Who the duck let's their 17 year old go to a warzone for an insured business?
@@matthewbittenbender9191 Funny you mention it, but a NYT journalist went to Kenosha to investigate claims of "insured businesses" and found that most of the areas/businesses being burned and looted were in low income areas occupied primarily by smaller, minority owned stores who didn't have insurance. She tried to run it prior to the 2020 election and the NYT editors put it aside. Also, Kyle had every right to be there, if not more so than the protestors/rioters. Kenosha was more his community than the likes of Grosskruetz or the other two low-lifes who attacked him. Never mind that people have no obligation to stand aside and watch society burn should the State abscond from their duties to protect its citizens and tax-paying businesses.
Like when a guy calls 911 and admits on tape he has a gun and is chasing an unarmed child through his own neighborhood. The law still sides with the dude with the gun.
@@everythingdibs344 Still amazes me that anyone is trying to blame video games for real world acts. Thought that would have ended after the moral panic of the 90s/00s.
i would hope that you are never my lawyer.. i mean cmon you said this was a protest when it is very clearly a riot and everyone in that area had their lives are risk because of it while the police just sat back and let it happen. if the people that have sworn to protect us actually did their damn job people like kyle wouldnt do what they did. your lack of objectivity is a problem.
One correction, he was found not guilty on five of the charges, the sixth was dropped because it was agreed to be not applicable by the prosecution due to the writing of the law.
@@rugbyralph288 "Reviewed the law extensively" That's a matter of opinion. Ive now watched 3 different reactions to this video with commentary from a total of 10 lawyers and Legal Eagle seems like he doesnt actually know the applicable law. He doesnt even know the facts of the case, and if he does he is deliberately omitting some for personal or partisan reasons.
That's incorrect. The prosecution agreed that it wasn't a short barrel rifle, but still maintained that he was in violation because he did not have a hunting permit. That was 1 of 3 requirements for him to lawfully have the rifle.
@@NYCFenrir The judge still ruled that the prosecution was incorrect in their assessment. At the end of the day it is the judge's job to rule on matters of law and he did. His ruling may not have been the intent of the legislators but if so then it's the legislators fault for failing to make the legislation clear. If a law is ambiguous then it is standard practice to use the most lenient interpretation of the law. Otherwise, you end up punishing people for basically picking the wrong interpretation. After all the law is not just for the judiciary it is also for reference by the general public so that they can make sure that they're adhering to it.
Slow mo distorts the reality of the initial lunge. That drone footage makes it look like their jogging but another camera angle will show Rosenbaum darting towards Rittenhouse. This video didn't mention it but Rosenbaum allegedly made death threats earlier that day.
Yeah, allegedly, Kyle certainly keeps claiming it, but he is caught lying at the protest multiple times. Says he's an EMT, says he didn't shoot Rosenbaum, and also at one point claimed he had a gun. None of those turned out to be true, says he was asked to be there even though the owners say they didn't. He doesn't have a lot of credibility imo.
@@Samhain23 Another witness said Rosenbaum said that also. Lots of people act like EMT/Medics during these situations that aren't. That is pretty common during these things. Kyle said he didn't shoot Rosenbaum because he was in shock AND knew a mob was going to come for him. Are you really expecting him to be like "oh yeah, I just killed that guy" in that situation? He said he was going to the police to turn himself in for a reason. Those car lot owners were straight up lawyers. Every other witness discredited what the owners said. Then there was a video after showing the owners talking to Rittenhouse.
@@Ka_Gg Hahaha lots of people act like EMT/Medics lol, bro he SAID he was an EMT multiple times. He has no qualifications. Yeah, if he's a responsible gun owner, or at all capable of bringing a gun, you should expect that you may have to use it. Admitting to what he had done and trying to de-escalate the situation would have gone a long way and maybe people wouldn't have felt so threatened by him that they tried to disarm him. We all know why though, he was caught on video talking about how he wanted to shoot at some "looters" so he went out there hoping to get a chance. He hung around, with a straw purchased gun that is only legal on a technicality and not something he knew at the time, and hoped he could insert himself into a situation where he could play badass, and he got his chance. I saw his fake ass breakdown on the stand, I saw his interview on Tucker where he sure doesn't seem to be all that traumatized, they were even cutting a documentary of him that dropped the second the verdict came in lol. This is the best thing that ever happened to him, he's now rich and a right wing hero. This is everything he hoped for. Again, Kyle has was caught lying multiple times, so what he says doesn't hold a lot of water to me unless it can be verified. They discredited what they said? Weird, then why were they not held in contempt for lying, why would they not come forward to say they asked him to be there it would give him a lot of credibility but he won't do it. Casey Anthony was ruled not guilty, so was OJ, doesn't mean they are innocent.
@@Birrrrra self defense laws allow the use of force to prevent harm or potential death from happening to someone else. For example, if you see someone walking around attacking people and causing them harm, you are allowed to step in and stop the attack.
21:57 This is a terrible argument. You actually imply that a person who defended himself and is retreating away from people towards the police is free game for a lynch mob.
@@waspie1690 because as soon as he dropped the gun, he would no longer have presented a threat for them to react to. This is a good reason not to be armed. Plus, being armed, demonstrates to others that you're willing to kill. I am not. I don't need a weapon to defend myself when attacked. I prefer to have my hands open for defense. You can't apply a lock or hold with something in your hand.
@@timkramar9729 he didn’t put it down because it’s his gun, and was afraid people would go after him, because one person already did. He was scared, and you’re putting weird standards on this kid. You’re expecting this kid to just assume nobody will see him as a threat after shooting someone? That mob wouldn’t have cared
None of this was murky. It was clear as crystal. It was self defense all day. And no, Gage Grosskruetz killing Kyle would have been murder because Kyle was the victim and was running away. I watched the actual video, they video in the trial, uncut and not edited. It’s very easy to see it was self defense. I think Legal Eagle is a bit pissed that it went the way it went. I notice there was no mention of the fact that every person Kyle shot was a felon. One was a felon in possession of a gun. There’s your provocation.
You also forgot to mention that the other two Kyle shot was a convicted domestic abuser and a 5 time convicted child rapist... yeah, and people are calling these monsters heroes.
@@savestate6360 you are very correct. Even one of JoJo the boy rider’s victim is pissed that peeled like Eagle here are defending him or portraying him as a hero.
That's completely irrelevant as you can't just tell that someone is a felon and Kyle most likely didn't know that either. So just like what legal eagle was saying that being under age with a firearm isn't a provocation because you can't just tell that someone is underage, being a felon with a gun couldn't have been a provocation on its own. Also what's the relevance of all of them being felons and whether Kyle acted in self defence? Again he wouldn't have known at the time and it didn't influence his decision. You can't just say oh I shot them because they were felons and expect to walk free.
Firstly you're simply taking at face value that Rittenhouse's testimony is fact. That's fine, someone with your amount of brain rot is likely to do that. But then not only are you assuming that, but you're assuming Grosskruetz' has the same brain rot as you, entirely believing whatever Rittenhouse's version of events is, but that he also has omnipotent knowledge of everything that had transpired before their confrontation. How do you not understand that when you take a gun into a crowd, and shoot someone, even _if_ the person you shot deserved it, nobody else in the crowd knows what you did or why you did it. Now you're just a guy holding a gun with a dead person next to him. Even kids learn at an early age that reality exists outside of their own head, and that not everyone has the same information.
@@Imbalanxd Prosecutor: So when you pointed your gun at Rittenhouse, that's when he opened fire. Correct? Grosskruetz: Correct. When you point a gun at a person who has a gun, then you sacrifice your own safety.
“Maybe Kyle Rittenhouse retreated at every possible opportunity.” Maybe? He did. The only shots he fired were after trying to run away, and still being pursued and physically attacked.
Problem is, now if someone has a gun in a crowd, is he a potential mass shooter or not? Do you have to wait for him to fire his bullets in the crowd before "taking him down"?. The kid brought a semi automatic weapon, capable of killing several people in a matter of seconds to public space. (And the gas station is not his grandparents shop. This information was false, and not even used in the trial by the defendants). I understand he might have been scared after 3 people confronted him. But what if those 3 people were the "good guys" trying to defend the others from a potential mass shooter?
@@nathanreimer1296 The riots happening around are irrelevant. Someone brought a gun to a public space with no consequence. Someone killed 3 persons as “self defence” but cases for self defence can be made for both parties. Did they confront him because he had a gun? Did they think he was starting a mass shooting? On the other side, there is not a single proof they were attempting to “blow up a station”. Do you know one of three he shots has his medical supplies to help the medics? Kyle would have been an actual shooter, these three would have been hailed heroes to try stopping him.
There's very little force that is truly non-lethal. Most is some measure of less-lethal. A skateboard and a boot to the head can both be deadly, even if less often than a firearm (which isn't always lethal either). Which is all sort of irrelevant because the standard for self defense is great bodily harm, not certain death.
As someone who didn't grow up around firearms and has gone through the CCW course in Wisconsin - I can tell you that if you don't have the CCW license or been around firearms long enough, you do not know LMTT. However, I feel it's pretty common knowledge to not point a firearm at anything you don't want to shoot (I knew this before I ever held a firearm). Sadly, this is the second attorney in a court room that I had seen mishandle a firearm in front of a jury. They really should have a professional train everyone in the court on how to handle a firearm, even if it's been checked and cleared by another when there's a case involving one.
@@MrBigTrey Rittenhouse never took possession of the rifle so it being straw purchase is really kind of a grey area. It always remained at Black's place until that night. So Black was the owner of the rifle and there is no law as far as I know that would prevent Rittenhouse from using it since he is legally able to possess a rifle.
@@MrBigTrey the only time it is legally considered buying a gun for a minor is when you give said gun to the minor after buying it with the intention of letting them keep it. The gun never even left Kenosha.
@@MrBigTrey Perfectly legal, which is why the underage gun charge was thrown out by the judge. It is legal for a minor in Kenosha to have a long gun at the age of 16. They literally talked about this in court for like an hour and the Prosecutors agreed.
"Sometimes you just have to take a beating." While the trial was in progress, in my community, an unarmed career criminal, out on probation, beat a 36-year-old Hispanic man TO DEATH. Just saying.
Submit to the mob is something you can haphazardly say when you aren't the one being run down at night while gunshots are going off and people are shouting and running at you. It's not your life or health on the line, so what if some Kenosha kid gets brain damage when his head hits the pavement or worse. You go about your life all the same. You can't live your life with the hindsight to trust people that, in real hindsight, were actually criminals to begin with. If someone runs you down knowing you are armed, they have far worse intentions than just disarming you. It is self evident.
@@KrazyKaiser If you watched the trial, and not just an extremely distorted take of it, you would know that in the closing statements, the prosecution told the jury 'Sometimes you just have to take a beating'. The OP is giving an example of what can happen when you 'take a beating', and why Rittenhouse was absolutely within his rights to defend himself.
@@jackoh991 Firstly, LEagle mentioned racial statistics IN THIS VIDEO and completely overlooked the fact that Kyle Rittenhouse himself IS a minority. Kyle Rittenhouse is Hispanic. That's why it's important. Rosembaum, an unarmed career child diddler who was released from a mental institution THAT NIGHT went to a racial protest, yelled racial slurs, made death threats, and then assaulted a minor. The case of Kyle Rittenhouse is MUCH WORSE, and the fact you're not aware of why shows why LEagle is a failure as an educator.
Well it's bias if the event is an protest and someone calls it a riot. And the reverse is true. If a riot is going on and someone calls it a protest they're clearly bias too.
No.. The people who say this was a protest are bias, the people who say this was a riot are objectively factual. One might even have called it an act of domestic terrorism since the goal here was to inflict harm and spread fear for the sake of political/ideological means..
Not really. Because a protest and riots were going on at the same time. I have no issue with protests, but am not a fan of riots, and given the extensive criminal history of everyone who attacked Kyle, it is hard to accept they were there to merely voice their displeasure via peaceful means.
-- Ya, in the first few seconds I mispronounced Jacob Blake's name. FML. I'll try to fix.
-- I didn't mean to suggest that the gun crossed state lines. My point was actually the opposite: people were making a big deal about Rittenhouse or his gun "crossing state lines" when it probably didn't matter to the provocation analysis. Even if that had been the case, it probably wasn't a crime or tort that could have served as the predicate for provocation.
-- "Being attacked" does not automatically mean you can use deadly force in self-defense. Your force must be proportionate and reasonable; you cannot use deadly force "unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself."
-- By that same token, unarmed people can generate such a fear; being unarmed doesn't necessarily mean no one can ever use deadly force against you (sorry for the double negatives!).
*grabs popcorn*
@@walkingonmygrave welcome to the new castle doctrine, where someone can go to a school with a gun, and kill people if they try to detain him, for carrying a murder tool in a place of learning.
@@walkingonmygrave Not only that, the fact that you can use self-defense after provoking the situation is nuts. It can lead to planned murders. And let's not start talking about vigilantism. This case can set a really dangerous precedent.
The 2nd and 3rd who got shot thought Kyle was an active shooter, they were using their right to self defence to stop him but that doesn't matter. Their lives don't matter even though Kyle fled the scene all because "sEcOnD aMmEnDmEnT".
The US is messed up, and all the people from the UK I've spoken with agree from what I've heard that Kyle murdered at least the second man.
@@walkingonmygrave can't do fed gun trafficking due to the gun never actually crossing state lines. Also the school zone thing is a stretch, but may be plausible. I doubt the DA would go for it.
I still can’t believe one of the first questions the prosecution asked Kyle is why he invoked his fifth amendment right to silence after being arrested
Doesn't your 5th amendment go out the window once you decide to take the stand?
@@MrBigTrey Yes. But he asked why he remained silent prior to the trial
@@MrBigTrey Yes, you can be questioned if you take the stand and (since you're under oath) have to answer the questions. But Binger tried to utilize Rittenhouse's post-arrest silence on the issue (IE not making a statement to the cops/a few sentences he said to the media when he wasn't in jail) as justification for a certain line of questioning. No one has to make statements after they've been arrested which is why the judge shit a brick when he tried to go down that line of questioning. Lawyers can't even mention post-arrest silence since it's such a big deal. TLDR: Totally good to question someone on the stand, super bad to question someone as to why they didn't talk about something when not under oath/in public.
@@chadcastillo2008 the worst part was they tried to make it seem like him using his rights (that the cops read to you) was a bad thing. It was an awful job of trying the case in every respect.
@@chadcastillo2008 I don't know how this works in the US, but in many British common law countries, the police caution often includes a remark that while you have the right to remain silent, if you fail to mention something when questioned that you later rely on in court, this could harm your defence.
The prosecutor really went with the “video games cause violence” angle smh.
If there's anything to be won here it's video game rights
That's ridiculous, if anything caused him to become violent, it was right wing politics.
@@3asianassassin I would say that the people trying to kill him caused the violence
@@3asianassassin except rittenhouse is a registered democrat and a blm supporter. What a failed comment.
@@uria702 Well he hung out with white supremacists beforehand and did the ok sign. That's no proof of anything, but it definitely does infer at the very least a connection to far right politics
If I ever get charged with a crime, I really hope Binger is the prosecutor.
You shouldn't, he's actually pretty good, and he's kind of slimy
@@rebeccatrishel Apparently not. This was pretty open and shut to me and still didn't go through. If you were to try the same thing at a white supremacist rally in Kenosha you should get away with it.
@@UndyingNero The fact that you're clueless about the law hardly make Binger a bad lawyer. But at least you're willing to admit that the Kenosha rioters were, in fact, just the Left's version of white supremacists.
In his defense, this was a case he could never win.
There where so many angles of video. And when all witnesses confirm selfdefense, it's impossible.
His only possible way was media and political pressure.
Wich is what happend. We watched media lie, still are lying somehow..
We watched politician give their piece of mind and in some cases threats to the jury and judge.
We even watched the president put pressure on this.
Too bad that in the next 10 years binger wont be a prosecutor....he'll be a judge.
Interestingly, the video DOES show Rittenhouse retreating at each instance, until no longer possible.
Exactly, he also doesn't shoot when the person that's about to attack him backs away
You mean to tell me Grosskruetz was chasing Kyle? He swore during his testimony he was merely running in Kyle's direction because Kyle was running away. He was not chasing.
@@zedalba Aaaand the video refuted that.
@@Seravat7no it didn’t, how can you differentiate running in a direction and chasing from that video
@@typhlosionproductions5970 Because he had a pistol in his hand and also lunged at Kyle after faking a surrender? Jesus, you're dumb.
I swear to god, I am not a legal professional yet and every time the prosecution spoke I found so many mistakes, leading questions and some of the worst points made in history my god as someone else said in the comments "The prosecution was the best defense lawyer Rittenhouse ever had" never heard a truer statement
I'd say the judge was.
They made bad arguments because there was no good argument. This should never have been tried
The prosecutor (and defence) is allowed to ask leading questions when they are cross-examining their opposition's witness, or a hostile witness.
@@thomasbecker9676 lmao then why didn't he dismiss the case after Binger commented on Kyle's 5th amendment right twice.
@@Halmir4126 Because depending on how the mistrial is declared, the prosecution can revisit it, and that (obviously) biased judge would probably not then preside over it. A mistrial doesn't necessarily mean the accused gets away with it.
The best quote I heard about this case: "I'm no lawyer, and the Kenosha DA shouldn't be one, either"
I love this!
we can throw the judge in that bin too... another guy who refused to perform his job with integrity.
@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394 Another clown that didn't watch the actual trial.
@@johnbull1568 The judge? Agreed 👍
@@johnbull1568 lulz, no, you just missed what you wanted to miss
Anyone who is truly surprised by the verdict didn't watch the trial.
Yeah, it was clear from the start the judge had no intention of letting the prosecution do their job.
@@KageSama19 Yeah, it was the judge's fault that the prosecution was a clownshow.
@@KageSama19 lol. oh yeah...that was it. smh.
@@abraxas4261 Shouldn't have even gone to trial.
@@Ka_Gg are you suggesting he should have been killed by the mob or the police?
Imagine how much worse this whole situation would have been if the video didn’t exist …
Rittenhouse would likely be in jail. We all know his situation was rigged against him. This shouldn't have even gone to court.
Oh he would definitely be in jail.
He would have been railroaded into prison.
He would have stood almost no chance in trial. There would have been way too many people testifying against rittenhouse.
The funniest part of that to me is that some of the footage came from Federal government drones. Meaning the Feds make a habit of monitoring these riots. It's almost like they know they are going to be violent.
I do hope there's a follow-up video to this one talking about the conduct _durring_ the trial. Specifically how the Prosecution seemed to be intentionally breaking rules and dropped the ball every chance they could. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if this case is studied in law school as a prime example of what NOT to do as the Prosecution.
EDIT: People seem to think I am taking a side with this comment. That's not the intention. If LE did do a follow-up video, I'd like to see him address the conduct of all relevant parties; Prosecution, Defence, Judge, Media, etc. I simply used the Prosecution as the main example because it's what stuck out the most to me, a layman who has seen a limited amount of the trial itself.
He may well have done that on videos on Nebula, but you would have to pay for that exclusive content.
Prosecutors do seem to have a way of making a lot more mistakes when going after white supremacists don't they?
@@o76923 Jesus you realize that was all media lies right? I can't wait for the defamation lawsuits.
@@o76923 honest to god the prosecution would never deliberately lose a case because losing as prosecution is terrible for your career on such a high profile case.
@@o76923 He was not a white supremacist.
RUclips: removes dislike button
Legal Eagle: Looks like I can inform people about controversial cases, now.
I said this exact same thing! Haha. I can't believe I used to subscribe to this clown.
I love how you call him a clown when you yourself don't' even know how videos are made and when they get posted, that's absolutely ironic. The only clown here is you
@@midgetwars1 I hurt somebody's feewings
@@FluffyBunny9002 OHHH NO HE LOST FLUFFY BUNNY AS A SUBSCRIBER. Bro grow up nobody cares
The dislike button is still there though.
You should have mentioned how the prosecutor tried to use Kyle's silence against him
That's goes against his politics, he never will.
This is a grey area at best. Kyle refused to be read Miranda and then asked for a lawyer...then after all that proceeded to speak volumes to the police before his lawyer arrived. Is it really pleading the 5th when you proceed to word vomit all over the police anyway? I would argue that Kyle never intended to plead the fifth at all. He was simply saying he wanted to speak with a lawyer after giving his statement. Kyle, despite all of his "police training" nonsense failed to comprehend Miranda at its most basic.
@@Kevin_2435 to be fair, asking for a lawyer is invoking your Miranda rights. Silence or asking for counsel counts as that. Now talking after is kinda dumb but also a grey area because police in some cases are required to give you a warning that you are waiving Miranda rights by agreeing to explain what happened and what not.
@@Kevin_2435 how do you refuse to be read Miranda? I though that was the Police's duty, like a lawful requirement.
@@BetaNurse68 They tried to warn him and he told them off saying "I want to talk, I want to talk." He never expressly waived his Miranda rights. I think the two things should be completely separate.
I beg to differ about the "non-deadly" force used by Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz, especially Huber because hit by a skateboard to the head can be deadly. There are cases where people were killed and permanently disabled because they were hit by a skateboard.
What's more important is that you don't wait for deadly force to be used against you because then you can't defend yourself. It's the threat of it being used against you, which is what was implied by Rosenbaum charging him when he was open carrying, Huber grabbing his gun, and Grosskreutz pointing his pistol at him.
But chose to drive down there knowing it was dangerous and chaotic. idc what the law says legality does not mean morality. Also tons of his statements afterwards, and things he has said has just shown he's an all around awful person and racist. No minority would have ever gotten away with this. He used his white privilege and was treating this scenario like he was in a movie.
Tell me how one human being thinks he could stop all of the rioting going on by just bringing a gun and charging in with a firearm? In what world is that going to help anything? its psychotic white person main character syndrome at its finest. If all of the police, swat, and fbi couldn't stop this (which he supports heavily) how would he be able to on his own?
He quite literally appointed himself judge jury and executioner, and became apart of the damage and chaos he was trying to stop and in no way did a single thing to make the situation better. How does shooting someone in the back running away stop all of the riots going on in the world?
They also actually did tell Kyle to come and defend the area (was later revealed that the owner of the place lied) as well meaning he came with intention to use deadly force before even seeing the situation. an uneducated 17 year old is not your security or personal armed guard. That is shit Americans give other countries for doing.
He didnt' stop the riots he just made everyone panic even more and caused even more rioting and violence.
He's trying to be super charitable, because if you go through it, what LegalEagle tries to say often could not be used in defense of Rosenbaum or Grosskreutz. huber on the other hand MAYBE even if he attacked with a weapon, he could have been argued doing it in immediate self defense of others. Rosenbaum nor Grosskreutz had that.
@@dragames The issue for Huber and the other looters is that Rittenhouse was in full retreat and was no longer a threat.
@@NIKOLAP7 that's my point..
I truly believe the prosecution lost the case when it was said a person does not have the right to use a gun in self defense.
Ya know when steven crowder said "I'd rather see headlines like potential rapist shot in ditch rather than rapist violates woman?" Yeah that. One of those guys shot was a sex offender.
@@wastelandlegocheem A kiddie diddler at that! If you'd seen the live news broadcast that day (which I did in Canada.) you'd see the diddler picking a fight with Kyle on more than one occasion. Guess he didn't like a kid having power over him!?
@@wastelandlegocheem yeah but Rittenhouse (nor anyone) knew that when he shot them so it’s honestly irrelevant
@@MyToastyToast legally true, morally faulty
@@jomaxgamez3840 its not morally faulty because Rittenhouse didn't know the man he was going to kill had an awful past. What could be considered morally faulty is this argument is only used as a diversion from the astounding amount of evidence and circumstances that night that point towards Kyle Rittenhouse going there having the intent to kill people with opposing socio-political ideologies
Some of the facts you put out are different than facts that were what was said at the trial. Such as the man that got shot in the arm said Kyle did not shoot at him until he pointed a gun at his head.
Does it matter the video is already too long
Welcome to the legal arm of the left wing media machine, you must be new.
@@lupuswarrior6785 Yes it should matter on a youtube channel that has this much influence/reach and claims to review legal cases according to the trial. This was such a transparent trial with evidence available to anyone that googles it.
Not to mention he posted about not regretting shooting Kyle when he had the chance on a different Facebook account...
@@lupuswarrior6785 "it's too long" isn't a good defense for being factually inaccurate.
The gun NEVER CROSSED state lines
Read the pinned comment, LE acknowledged that.
@@Ni999 Yeah, plenty of other wrong statements in this video, apparently LE does not know the facts, like most.
@@James-dc3yt He knows. Just doesn’t care
@@Ni999 he waited all this time to make a video, and failed to put that into video that leftists like yourself regurgitate like prophecy from God.
@@justinb7940 except at that point Kyle didn't have possession of the gun meaning Kyle never crossed state lines with the gun at any point.
Kylie Rittenhouse was very lucky he was armed. Many were attacked and killed during the riots that never had a chance because they were not armed and could not escape.
"Lucky he was armed" is a funny way of saying "went out of his way to be somewhere and instigated a fight so that he could shoot people"
@@araccoonstolemyradiator
thats a funny way of saying "my IQ is below room temprature and i did not take five minutes to actually look into the case"
sit down clown.
@@araccoonstolemyradiator He was standing outside businesses to prevent them from being vandalized from rioters. Something that is perfectly legal to do. All footage from the night shows rioters approaching and attacking him. He never approached or instigated a fight with anyone.
Conveniently did not show or mention that Gaige pointed his pistol and advanced on Rittenhouse before getting shot. That omission is a very big deal. Would be worth noting that Rosenbaum was threatening to cause severe bodily harm to multiple people earlier, including Rittenhouse, which is part of the self defense.
Of course Legal Eagle didn't. He has a narrative to peddle to his idiot viewers instead of just telling the truth of the situation about Kyle.
JC He is a political hack. He does not care about the law if it does not advance his Marxist agenda.
That’s when he tried to sit there and say that Kyle‘s making shit up by saying he’s making a self-aggrandizing statement. He’s glossing over the fact that many people testified to the threats and simply saying no such thing existed really.
Eagle is a racist shill
@@ThatsaToilet it is far worse. LE wants you silenced and put in an oven to die. It is not even human like and should be sent to the same gulags it wants gun owners, libertarians, and free speech advocates sent to. I have watched it for years and and his hatred of America and freedom grows stronger each day. It will call on the stooges at the FBI to fix me or at least put me on a deplorable list.
14:05 I'd say it's a pretty important fact that Gaige was not shot until he pointed his firearm at Rittenhouse, per his own testimony.
Yeah, he lost me when he said Gaige would’ve gotten the same verdict if he had shot and killed Kyle.
Prosecutor's face was priceless
@@AFR0MAMBA pretty sure gaige testified that he thought he saw kyle pull back the charging handle(I know kyle didn't, be he did hit the forward assist) its reasonable for gaige to assume kyle was going to shoot him. It's possible Gaige could have gotten the same verdict if he had shot kyle.
Yeah
Gaige would have gotten the same verdict for sure. I don’t know why he approached him. I would have killed KR at 25 yards if I thought he was a mass shooter.
You left out the fact that Anthony Huber grabbed the barrel of his gun and tried to yank it away from him after hitting him with a skateboard while he was on the ground.
'you left out the fact', yeah, that's why they're called leftists.
You wouldn't try to take their gun away if you believed they were an active shooter? The active shooter policy at my uni was to charge down the shooter if he entered a classroom. They're effectively enacting a typical active shooter policy.
@@Rwdphotos grabbing a firearm by the barrel and pointing it at your chest is a good way to get ventilated. Even giving Huber the benefit of the doubt that he believed he was attempting to disarm an active shooter, he bypassed the first two policies when dealing with an active shooter as outlined by the Department of Homeland Defense. First is evacuating the area, second is of you can't evacuate then hide and third as a last resort attempt to disarm the shooter. Your school didn't tell you to hunt and rush a shooter in the hallway but to do so if they entered the same classroom as you. One of the biggest issues with self defense laws is that they can become murky. Huber could have acted with every good intention but that doesn't invalidate Kyle's right to self defense. There is even a possibility that if Huber would have came out on top that he could have been sued because he would have had to prove that he believed his life was in immediate threat. That is kind of hard to prove when he had to chase the threat down.
@@Rwdphotos That’s the problem Kyle wasn’t an active shooter are you suggesting that he get punished because someone thought he was something that he wasn’t?
@@johnny.V03 it doesn't really matter if he was or wasn't; he was shooting at people, so people thought he was a shooter. If a cop got a report that there was a shooter in an area, and he comes across a guy shooting a gun at people, he's most likely going to drop the guy
This is a rather weak video -- and the wishy-washy conclusions are unjustified. Having watched through most of the trial myself, I cannot help but conclude that not only was Rittenhouse's verdict of self defense justified, it was *fully* justified -- there was *more* than enough evidence to conclude that Rittenhouse *fully* acted within the law of self defense, and even within the bounds of the law generally (except possibly for the curfew issue -- but it can be argued that, since the State government wasn't doing enough to protect the neighborhoods from rioters, even *that* was justifiable.)
Everyone who didn't attack Kyle didn't get shot that night.
Funny how that works even though he was there to start trouble according to the prosecution of
This is indeed a fact.
@@mysteryjunkie9808 I thought the people who were there to burn car lots to the ground were the ones starting trouble, but ok
@@mysteryjunkie9808 He was very much there to start trouble. A minor going to a protest they know nothing about, in a different state, with a firearm- is reckless and negligent. He’s a moron.
People keep complaining about the judge being biased, but according to reports from other lawyers that work in that district, he's that way all the time, not just in the Rittenhouse case. Personally, I'd prefer to live in a country where the judges put the burden more on the prosecution and less on the defense. I judge that is biased towards the prosecution is terrifying.
Yeah the prosecution is the state, and the state has near infinite resources for putting forth a case, giving them even more power by siding with them during a case is not cool.
@Cool Cat because the jury had the final say? Shittenhouse shouldn't have been there. And he wouldn't have been there if people didn't think rioting solved social injustices. All of those protests achieved what? Two dead and another shot? Millions in property damage and lost goods?
hes bias cuz of the ruling you cant call the victims victims but rioter or looter is acceptable to pollute the jury the way he wanted to
@Cool Cat it’s more of a standard than a bias I’d say. There are a lot of predatory practices in manipulating defendants to confess to crimes they didn’t commit or to unknowingly incriminate themselves.
@@fkujakedmyname he had a similar standard for those words as well, don't call them something you can't substantiate. And the point of the trial was to substantiate whether or not Rosenbaum and Huber were victims. The closing arguments were allowed to use the language they'd like
21:37 This is a really shit take. This is basically saying that no form of self-defense should be acceptable, and that if you were attacked and defended yourself you could be murdered because someone else thought you murdered someone.
At the time, Grosskreuz was not in peril. Kyle Rittenhouse was running away. You can't argue that would be self-defense. Even IF Kyle had murdered someone, unless you witnessed it first hand and were able to either defend yourself or others in that moment, Grosskreuz would have been convicted of murder.
Idk man, I'm not an American, but it seems to me that the only reason there's any controversy over this case is because of its hyper-politicisation.
I would have thought this was a pretty cut and dried case of self-defence, even if there had been a duty to retreat law in place. I don't how you could watch that footage and not conclude that Kyle was retreating and in imminent danger, if not necessarily of death, then at least of getting the shit beat out him, and he really didn't have any other options available to him.
what country are you from? just curious .
Same as a non American it seemed pretty obviously self defense.
A BLACK guy named Andrew Coffee shot at police Bc they executed a no knock warrant. He didn’t know it was police and argued self defense on a murder charge he got after the shooting. Jury acquitted him the SAME DAY AS KYLE RITTENHOUSE WAS ACQUITTED. You never heard about Andrew Coffee Bc the media never reported it because it doesn’t fit their narrative that a black guy would’ve been found guilty if they were in Kyle’s shoes that night.
Devin just claimed this was not "clear cut" but that's because he omitted a ton of evidence of this trial.
American tribalism is cancer. They will only wake up when it's already too late.
The name of the person shot was Jacob Blake, not Jacob Black, for reference. It's a nitpick, but for people looking up the context to the unrest in Kenosha this could be useful.
It’s funny how this over shadowed the reason this even took place.
@@spinningbackkick6021 I only watched the first few seconds of the video when I made that comment. Just something I noticed quickly and wanted to point out.
@@spinningbackkick6021 because it's not relevant to this case or the law applied in this case.
On an unrelated side note Jacob Black is the werewolf from Twilight.
Did you know that he was attempting to hijack a car of someone who he had previously raped a couple months earlier. After being tased twice, he was attempting to leave the scene with the hijacked car when the woman said "He's got my kid. He's got my keys". A car which he had put a knife in. It doesn't seem to me like the police had that much of a choice.
12:44 who were clearly lying and even the prosecution admitted they were lying......
Legal eagle likes to leave inconvenient truths out.
@@Phillylove100 a dishonest lawyer? Never
This guy definitely didn't watch the trial either lol
I find it very difficult to believe someone chasing a person with a firearm is acting rationally and not attempting to use violence.
This 100%. Even a small child would know that. But maybe people get less reasonable when they get older ?
And obviously the jury found that hard to believe as well. Per the verdict. This lawyer is a loon.
@@ivankrushensky hes just a left-wing activist
Could be trying to remove violence. If someone had an open gun in my neighborhood and was acting dangerously I might.
@@kdsquire99 maybe you missed it, but Rittenhouse was not "acting dangerously". He didn't attack or provoke anyone. Quite the opposite actually, he was ambushed as he was using a fire extinguisher. So if you saw a parking lot full of cars lit on fire and you saw a man using a fire extinguisher to put them out, and he also so happened to have AR-15 strapped to his chest, you think you would attack him? For what reason?
20:00 Getting hit by a skateboard is deadly force. Guy in Santa Ana died in 2015 from a single headshot with a skateboard. Sorry, but you’re wrong.
Folks who don't skate forget that a skateboard is just a piece of hardwood. Picture getting smacked across the face with a 2x4.
It's not about being wrong hes trying script cover for msm
There was also another case much more recently of a guy who died from a skateboard to the head outside a Starbucks.
@@ae6401 he probably got paid or is one of those anti gun commies
@@ae6401 lmao okay
I think you need to go watch the trial and come back and redo this one.
Lolol yup
Come on, man. A propagandist is not gonna sit there and put in actual facts.
@@justanothergmailaccount1353 wut? lol
what are you talking about?
@@thejesusaurus6573 That LE is smart enough to know what he is doing.
By "carefully" omitting certain facts in the hopes of convincing a large enough portion of his 2+ million subscriber base that Rittenhouse is guilty, he is acting as a Propagandist by putting his political leanings over the factual evidence presented in the case.
LE isn't dumb, he's smart enough to know what he is doing. Unless of course he's a really terrible Lawyer and honestly doesn't know what he's doing?
One element you neglected to mention was that the owner's testimony was contradicted by an employee who took the stand. His testimony, along with Black and Rittenhouse, states they asked for help. I have a feeling they committed perjury due to the potential financial risk of associating with Rittenhouse.
Regardless, you shouldn't be using a kid with no qualifications as armed security. Hire an actual professional with experience and relevant qualifications, especially if you have, as in this case, a reason to believe that there is an unusually high chance of a serious incident. So, regardless of whether or not he acted in self defense, he should not have been there in the first place, much less armed.
@@alexanderflack566 Let's broaden this net. NO ONE, not a single person, should have been there. There shouldn't have been a threat period. I agree, under normal circumstances I would hire professional security but it seems like that was a feasible option, especially considering the community is rather small. All in all had everyone not decided to torch a town over a justified police shooting, a child molester and domestic abuser would still be alive today.
@@alexanderflack566 there shouldn’t have been people burning buildings there. So the three people that got shot shouldn’t have been there either. In fact, they had a lesser moral position to be there than Rittenhouse, considering that Rittenhouse wasn’t an aggressor but a third party volunteering to provide aid.
I agree with you.
But I also think that about a lot of the protestors. I don't care what the cause is, we don't need the kind of guys who engaged that kid.
@@alexanderflack566 The 1st amendment protects Rittenhouse's right to be there. Whether he should or should not have been there is a moral question, not a legal one and thus has no place in this argument.
Btw none of those vandals should've have been there either, wouldnt you agree? They also shouldn't have attacked Rittenhouse, wouldn't you agree? Lots of should've would've here.
In one of the Southern States there was a black man whose house was raided by a swat team that did not properly identify themselves he defended his home from who he thought were intruders. He was found not guilty on all counts. Because he believed with an unreasonable doubt that this armed team was there to kill him and his family.
Link? I want a feel good story today.
@@remlapwastaken8857 I heard about it from Tim Pool. Just look up guy in Texas or Georgia (not totally sure which) takes out swat team maybe?
Ok? How does this apply to Rittenhouse?
@@andersonwallace4365 how does the "but if he was black" argument apply to Rittenhouse?
@@lava3218 tell me please.
I appreciate this video. But I would have liked to see more analysis of the trial itself and some of the major mistakes the lawyers made on both sides. A lot of people are saying the prosecution did a terrible job and I’d like to see what you think about that.
He did, check it out! In his video about the controversy around the judge, he goes over the many mistakes that the prosecution makes. It did seem to be lacking on the defense's mistakes though
@@thathumburgerismineasshole5739 thanks. Not so sure defense mistakes are a relevant now though lol
He obviously didn’t watch the trial. So that’s a big ask.
Although, I suppose it’s possible he did watch the trial. Which makes this “analysis” even more egregious.
Thats a completely different conversation and goes outside of basic objective facts.
@@rickjablonski9669 In which state did you take the bar?
Curious that Gaige Grosskreutz pointing his pistol at Rittenhouse was left out of the "simplification" of the situation. Something which he previously lied about and famously admitted to on the stand.
@@v-2010 Lol he's a hero and a licensed medical professional, not some larping teenager
@@v-2010 lol that’s a hell of a stretch.
GG had every reason to believe KR was an active shooter when he approached him.
@@v-2010 shame he didn’t
@@christopherbrice5473 A convicted criminal that illegally carried a concealed firearm, there thats Grosskreutz for ya.
@@CrestOfArtorias Convicted of what?
15:29 “Reasonable minds can differ…”. This is what biased commentators say when the obvious truth is right in front of them. “All he (Rosenbaum) did was chase him and throw something at him and jump toward him”. Yeah can’t imagine why that would be perceived as a threat…. 🙄
You Wrote
“All he (Rosenbaum) did was chase him and throw something at him and jump toward him”. Yeah can’t imagine why that would be perceived as a threat…. 🙄
Reply
He also threatened to kill him if he caught him alone.
I think you too easily brushed aside the preceding incidents that Kyle Rittenhouse “self-servingly” testified to. It was not only his testimony, but that of multiple other witnesses which stated that Rosenbaum had threatened to kill them if he caught them alone at any point that night. And the fact that when he turned around and pointed the gun at Rosenbaum, he was being CHASED through a parking lot at night by a rowdy individual who had just threatened to murder him an hour earlier. He was being chased before the “bag of clothes that landed nowhere near him” was ever even thrown. I’m left leaning in my politics as well LegalEagle, but I feel you may be letting your bias in a bit more to this case than you realize.
Specifically the prosecutor's own witnesses.
Yep, 4 other witnesses testified to that, but Kyle was "self serving".
Also not mentioned is the difference between ‘probable cause’ vs ‘reasonable suspicion’.
Citizens can’t really assume a crime has been committed, and be legally protected when acting on that assumption. If some random person says “he shot someone” and you kill them, you’re not acting in self defence. You pretty much need to be certain a crime was committed, and that effectively requires you were witness to the crime.
During the trial it was shown Grosskreutz had no idea what happened between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum. It’s reasonable to assume Huber was the same.
Yeah he’s pretty bad about letting his bias sneak in
I see what you’re saying but as he points out multiple times, the reaction from rittenhouse needs to be reasonable and equal to the threat essentially. If i said to you “i’m going to kill you” then proceed to grab a stuffed animal, a reasonable response would not be to shoot me. In my option that applies to a lot of what took place. He was being chased by an unarmed man, that isn’t enough of a reason to kill him. Neither is the fact that he might have said he would kill him. It was rittenhouse’s own doing of possessing of a firearm that he then used as his basis to claim self defense. If you take out the gun, i don’t believe he gets off. Say for example he was just there with a sign that disagreed with the protestors and he was told “i will kill you” then later on he’s being chased by this guy, finds some sort of blunt object and beats the guy to death. In my opinion that would not be considered self defense.
So you gonna sit here on the internet and say the dude that hit him in the head with a skateboard and the fool that tried to drop kick Rittenhouse WERENT using deadly force? Seriously?
META-lawyers is like magicians or rather illusionists... If I walk up to this lawyer, or lets say Bill Gates, and swing my skateboard to their heads with all my power... I would be punished like if I used deadly force... But if some protester attack an white boy it is something different right... Uber and Unter Menchen......
"Sometimes you just got to take a beating" --- the Jabba the Hut Prosecutor
No, they weren't. How hard is that to understand?
@@tylerrhoades4049 It doesn't have to be deadly force. It has to be imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Getting kicked in the face while on the ground or hit with a skateboard when the person wielding it has the intent to cause damage can both, in a reasonable person's mind, constitute death or great bodily harm.
@@tylerrhoades4049 you dont think hitting someone in the head with a skateboard is deadly force? Lol
Can you make a video going over the prosecution & defense in court? Like perhaps speaking on their tactics & potential miscues?
Maybe put it in longform on Nebula? I would watch it 🙂
Maybe reacting to it, like his videos about realism with lawyers on films and series ^^
He'd actually have to watch the Trial then. something he obviously didn't do to make this video.
The segment on the prosecution would be very short:
- Tactics: none
- Potential Miscues: Everything.
He can't because he obviously did not watch the trial. Maybe he watched the CNN shorts?
Kyle running away from the assailants toward the police, only shooting people who attack him.. means Kyle was an active shooter?
I love how there are huge differences of opinion about the verdict, but we can all agree that the prosecution was God-awful
The prosecution was the defense's best witness ;-)
There is no room for "opinion" on the verdict, it is derived from the law, and in this instance justice was served.
@@DrMantisToboggan69 and as we all know, the law clearly has the final say on morality.
That's because the prosecution had nothing to work with, apart from sleazy insinuation and dirty tricks. People should be concerned that they will employ the same tactics in every other case.
@@DrMantisToboggan69 The law says slavery is good.
I'm not so sure that, in an alternate reality where any of those three killed Rittenhouse instead, self-defense would have worked. In each one of those scenarios, they approached Rittenhouse and attacked him first, when any reasonable person would have avoided a so-called active shooter with a rifle.
Just my thoughts on that thought experiment at the end.
Yeah but the moment Rittenhouse points his rifle at any of them threatening to fire on them they would likely enter the selfdefense area again.
Running away from a gunman is more often than not less viable than to shoot them first if you already have your gun out.
@@DiabloDBS Wrong. You cannot argue self defense when you are charging someone aggressively, including grabbing their weapon, kicking them, hitting them with a skateboard, etc. especially if Kyle was running away when this all happened. Once Kyle was on the ground and he was surrounded on all sides, dodging physical attacks on all sides that is 100% self defense all day.
@@390razr your argument against here doesn’t seem to be made on a legal basis
rittenhouse was not an active shooter
@@gregadams5642 after he had shot Rosenbaum, he was an active shooter, and the shot at more people.
AS someone who did watch the entire case... goddamn you're disingenuous and misconstruing what happened.
Confirmed
Well I do have one thing to ask as you said in this video that you classified being hit with a skateboard as nonlethal; whereas it and the flat bar alongside the exposed nut are HEAVILY known for skull fractures and heavy hand/arm injuries while trying to defend from it because it becomes a gigantic lever multiplying force and a deadly weapon. Would that not be the rough equivalent as being attack with a tire iron or similar object?
And for everyone blabbing on about the first guy being unarmed and having only thrown a garbage bag; do you think after hearing that gunshot while running away that Kyle would stop and have to check that the guy chasing him wasn’t the one who shot while being chased by numerous other people while one of those people was actually armed?
A skate board is a deadly weapon, so is a wooden baseball bat. People are just trying to justify the actions of child predators and criminals. Oxymoron I know
You can get up and walk away with a concussion.
@@timkramar9729 ya you can, but not when there’s a mob of people that would stop you to death and steal your rifle. Go back to your mothers basement now
@N Fels I had a concussion when I was five. Hit by a car. Still alive.
Also, no one was looking to do anything but disarm him.
Sorry Eagle, it was a Riot not a protest. Next you will tell me the terrorist attack in Waukesha, WI was just a car accident.
That accident narrative is so unbelievable. Scary how they mis-shape so many people's idea of the world.
Just imagine if Kyle was armed with an SUV /s
At 14:02, you forgot to mention that he testified that Rittenhouse didn't shoot at him until he lowered his hands and pointed the gun at Rittenhouse the second time
It's called lying by omission. But since he's a woke leftist, it's all good.
@@DK-ed7be dude, come on. Cut the guy some slack, no matter what he does or doesn’t say people are gonna berate him. While I’m sure his political views affect his view, maybe give him the benefit of the doubt.
-this coming from a conservative
@@gabeewing765 He lied. Why should anybody cut a liar slack?
@@DK-ed7be Let alone an alleged legal expert, with a very widely known part of the trial.
That’s because legal eagle is biased. He says so many dumb things here. Hell, so many wrong things, like Gaige would be defending himself if he shot Kyle, which is just not true given that Kyle was running to police.
What I learnt from watching this:
LegalEagle didn’t watch the trial 😂
yeah, I’m going back to RekeitaLaw. Omitting from the facts that Gaige pointed his gun at Kyle before Kyle shot him, or that Mike.Rosenbaum had his hand over the barrel of Kyles gun when he fired and had threatened to kill Kyle the previous day, is pretty inexplicable and crucial to impressions. Neutral my ass.
I wonder how many of Rekieta‘s viewers came over here just to call out legal liar.
@@justanothergmailaccount1353 I'm here for the comments
@@justanothergmailaccount1353 I already knew LE was a fraud from before, I'm with crack, I just came for the comments lol
That's not the point. The point is that "reasonableness" is subjective and can change depending on the jury. He laid out the questions and basically it's up to the Jury to decide how they are answered.
@@taoliu3949 it's not subjective if the information you get is factual and not missing key details, but you won't get that with legal eagle
"This case is murky at best" says the guy after showing one of the most well documented and clear cut self defense cases in recent history. your bias is showing as usual
Well said. Legal Eagle blew this one.
LegalGrifter has over 5mil subscribers somehow and describes this case as "murky".
I was recently on jury duty, something I hope to never have to do again, and at the end walked away thinking that both the defense AND the prosecution had done bad jobs. This was something the whole jury admitted to feeling while in deliberation.
My only advice... try to avoid any situation where you might have to be on trial because you never know if a bad lawyer will get you sent to prison because of something you did not do.
I mean if I didn't do anything I'm going to trial. There's always appeals
Jury Nullification.
@@MichaelNunya The Justice System hates this one weird trick!
The entire jury system is flawed.
"Let's take 6 to 12 people who know nothing about the law and have them decide someone else's legal fate!"
My last jury duty was so annoying. The defense lawyer kept putting words in his client and witness' mouths the entire time. We even made fun of him in the jury room while we were having lunch.
A full force strike to the side of the head with a skateboard can 100% be considered deadly force
Plus you can see him GRAB the gun and try to pull it away from Kyle.
obvious - he doesnt care.
Especially since he could’ve easily fallen over and cracked his skull on the pavement
Of course they thought Kyle was a mass shooter, what if they were right? You would be buying a signature skateboard would you not?
they should only play at full speed.
I use to work with a guy who, during the Boston Marathon bombing, said he wished he would have been there because he would have shot the guy. I was never able to convince him that randomly shooting when you have no idea what is going on is an awful thing to do. It creates more panic, puts more lives in danger and makes the police's job a lot harder because all of a sudden, they don't know who is on what side, they just have groups of people firing at random at people they think are the perpetrator. Its a recipe for disaster.
He has no business carrying a weapon in the first place with that sort of unsafe mindset, let alone in a crisis situation.
I'm guessing people all over the world have the "hero" complex, thinking force is the way to solve stuff. Only thing is, most other places of the world know not to make it easy for the heroes to be to get a gun. Still don't understand north american mentality, tbh. I feel like when you have had a "right" for a long time, getting it removed feels like an assault, even if said "right" actually harms you.
I was living in Boston when the bombing happened the fall out was chaotic enough if your friend did this he'd probably be in jail because he'd have most likely shot an innocent we didn't know who the perps were until they themselves brought attention to themselves by getting in a firefight with the cops.
“The guy” is working in the Wisconsin legislature now, apparently. The instructions are basically “shooting people is bay, yo, so we want to encourage it with this insane law.”
@@ismaelibanez9545 So in the frontier cultures of north America the natives and the wildlife were very dangerous and would require the need of protection by your own means, practically this was necessary and would follow into the revolution. The intention of the second amendment is pretty obvious that it was both a stake of decentralization in the polity sense but further is a populist sentiment on the liberal ideal. The right to bear arm's is basically a clause made by people who're essentially aware of history and aware that any state no matter how nobly concieved must have the necessity to take matters into their own hands. We would warn against this generally, and most who adhere to the right generally do but it was primarily something so when the state fails as it often tends to do that the people would have a right to practically act in their own best interest.
He did not include that the guy that got shot in the bicep ran towards Kyle and pointed a handgun- that’s when he got shot
Guys a biased clown. I used to like his videos
The prosecution was the best defense Kyle never paid for.
I’m convinced they tanked it on purpose
He was innocent regardless. Kiddo
The fact that they asked him on the stand if he plays Call of Duty was laughable. For all we know the prosecutor also plays Call of Duty, question was 100% irrelevant
@@MrGuideElk he really wasn’t, kiddo
@@KC-py5vq damn how much time did he get?!
BRUH... this is just BAD how many KEY facts you intentionally leave out that further cements the right verdict on not guilty... again bruh.
Leftists know they're lying.
you missed the part where Anthony Huber can be seen trying to take the gun from Kyle. You played it over and over, but didn't comment on that aspect or that Grosskruetz didnt get shot until he pointed his gun at Kyle's head. Or the corner report of burn marks on Rosenbaums hand from his hand grabbing the barrel.
If you caught active shooter. Wouldn't you try take his gun? ... Or would you just let him continue his rampage?
@@harrikarppinen3749 You’re acting as if Kyle just shot into the crowd Willy nilly. Which obviously wasn’t the case at all. Kyle only shot people who actively attacked him. Rosenbaum chased him into a corner and grabbed his weapon, after having threatened him and multiple people throughout the night. Huber hit him in the head with a skateboard and Grosskruetz feigned surrender, pulled a pistol on him, and was shot as soon as Kyle saw the gun. Grosskruetz stated multiple times that he intended to shoot Kyle. The evidence was clear from day one up to now, and you still chose to ignore all of it and make stuff up.
@@harrikarppinen3749 Kyle was not an active shooter. The first time he fired his gun was when Rosenbaum went for Kyle's weapon.
@@harrikarppinen3749 Rosenbaum was the first guy that got shot. He's the guy that set the fire to lure Rittenhouse back there then chased him.
@@jayteegamble why would Kyle be lured to a fire?
Like your videos, but I disagree with your assessment that Grosskreutz could have used the self defense argument.
He is on video chasing down Rittenhouse.
Not sure he could argue he feared for his life
agreed
good point! I was thinking maybe Legal Eagle made a good point, but what you said is true too. I really didn't like that Grosskreutz guy. Seems like a real tool. And to fake-surrender so you can try to kill someone, just leaves a bad taste.
@N Fels He didn't. Running away proves.
@Neil you can't attack someone and then claim self defense
@N Fels Walking around an active riot without being part of the many regulated, citizen's militias willing to make a blind eye to the fact he was under 18.
A vigilante with a gun is a vigilante with a gun, he's asking for it (unless he was part of the, I repeat, many citizen's militias in place that night, he could've tried to put that fire down while being covered by a militiamen squad, you know, Escalation and engagement? CONservatives talk a lot of macho crap about war and weapons, but seems that they're tactically Rworded, Meal Team Six is real).
He wanted to play Johny Hero Vigilante in a situation where he knew he could get away with murdering a leftist/brown person, because he's been indoctrinated to be a Brown Shirt, virtually since birth, just like the vast majority of American kids growing and conforming to a CONservative.
There's nuance to self defense, unless you want to work under the "look at what you made me do" logic, which is consistent on how CONservatives are abusive by nature.
I’m sure this comment section is going to be quite civil and have very thought out and nuanced takes.
Nuanced takes aren't better just because you think everything in the world is nuanced. Sometimes it's not. It's just not.
If you want the opposite, check Ben Shapiro's. lol
Mh, yes, quite
What's the nuance in an innocent verdict? lol, there's absolutely no nuance.
@@trip2belize missed the biggest nuance of all: court of law does not prove you “innocent.” It may find you “guilty” or “not guilty.” “Not guilty” is not the same as “innocent”. Kyle is not innocent, but was found not guilty of the the charges he was tried for. That does not preclude him from being a huge idiot for going to an active riot with a firearm.
Objection - misstating the record.
I think it's important to note that although the owners of car source (the Khindri brothers) did indeed testify in court that they didn't ask Kyle or anyone else to protect their business, there was conflicting testimony in court by Rittenhouse, Black and Smith.
Additionally, at least according to the defense, there is apparently at least some indication in the police's report from when the interviewed the Khindri's that they believed the Khindri's were lying about not asking Kyle or anyone else to protect the business, possibly because they were concerned about possible civil liability.
And finally, we know for certain that at least 1 of the Khindri brothers perjured himself on the stand, when he testified that he "had never met, talked to or even heard of Kyle Rittenhouse", however, there is photo evidence of Kyle, Dominick Black and Nick Smith (in addition to several other "militia members") talking, hanging out and taking photos together at the dealership on the day of the shooting.
There is also video of the owners hanging out with Kyle and friends before dark at the car lot.
Their credibilty as witnesses was extremely dubious
I can see why that wasn't included though, it's not relevant to whether or not Rittenhouse acted in self-defense
That's not even bringing into the fact that the prosecutor stated he thought the brothers were lying and he was basically suborning perjury.
Ooh, now THAT is something I want to hear more about.
I mean when discussing duty to retreat and self defense.... three men got shot and not a single one of them was running away from Kyle. Kyle shot three people, he was running away from all three of them.
The last person he shot was aware he was an active shooter fleeing the scene. If he was really afraid of an armed man he would've disarmed him after shooting him.
That's ignoring the rending first aid or calling 911 immediately....
@@Novellization no, the last person thought Kyle was working for the police (per his own testimony), that's probably why he decided to try executing Kyle.
Also you should probably look up the definition of active shooter, Kyle doesn't even come close.
@@Novellization by fleeing the scene do you mean heading toward the police? Because that’s literally the direction he was going…
@@Novellization McGinnis, while rendering first aid to Rosenbaum, was struck in the back of the head by one of the rioters, and you're proposing Rittenhouse should have stayed there to also render first aid?
To what end? So he could be beat to death by the rioters?
@@cormoran2303 the actual testimony is that he thought that would be, and didn't attempt to render aid or call real first aid responders. He did run to call his friend, then his parents and finally to chit chat with "like minded" people he met that night.
After you lawfully shoot a man, you stay to render aid and wait for law enforcement. Did you not get this info at CC class? Wait lemme guess....
Hey, remember when that smug, pompous Binger aimed a rifle at the jury with his finger on the trigger?
Lets not forget. As of this comment he is still a DA in Kenosha, despite his incompetence.
He didn't aim the rifle at the jury. He aimed it across the room and from some angles you could see why people thought that.
Didn't even touch on the fact that Prosecution changed it's strategy at the very end of the trial? Provocation wasn't even a thing till they brought in that Drone video and tried to pretend you could see him point his gun.... strangely enough they didn't feel the need to call the witness that they were claiming he pointed the gun at, lol.
Not to mention the prosecution withheld the HD version of the video from the defense.
Probably because he didn't watch so didn't know that
@@Ruturaj22 yeah. He lied about how peaceful the portland protests were, then my class mate got murdered there.
I watched the HD footage and I still could not see Kyle aiming a weapon at Rosenbaum before he pursued Kyle
@@dallascopp4798 so did everyone else including the prosecution lol. That claim has been debunked by sever "tech" people showing that "kyles arm" was there several frames before Kyle was aka, what they were claiming was his arm was not
"Grosskreutz then puts his hands up while armed with a pistol".
But he then lowered his arms, and levelled his (illegally owned and carried) pistol at Kyle Rittenhouse.
That was the point at which Kyle Rittenhouse shot him.
Funny how the language he used avoided these key details...
I don't think the "illegally owned and carried" part is relevant, seeing as the legality of ownership doesn't have any effect on whether Kyle Rittenhouse was justified (since there's no way he even could've known), and more importantly, because gun control is wrong and fundamentally illegitimate.
@@NathanTAK "because gun control is wrong and fundamentally illegitimate."
There are quite a few laws I think are wrong, but that doesn't mean I can simply ignore them.
Also the prosecution argued (unsuccessfully) that Kyle Rittenhouse had an illegal gun, in an attempt to weaken his defence, so what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
@@BedsitBob You don't have to ignore them, but I would argue that it's poor form to go out of your way to call attention to someone's status as having violated a law you consider immoral, unless your point in doing so is to criticize it. After all, there is no _shame_ in breaking an unjust law.
Also I'm interested in the "sauce for the goose" thing; it's _"good_ for the goose" where I live (Pacific Northwest), and interdialectic variation is fascinating.
@@NathanTAK Yet the prosecution drew attention to Kyle Rittenhouse (allegedly) breaking that same unjust law.
As for "what's sauce for the goose", it's a British saying, which I presume comes from the idea you put sauce on goose, when eating it.
I think Rittenhouse's unequivocal attempts to retreat in combination with Grosskreutz's testimony will make it impossible for a reasonable person to conclude that he did not act in self-defense.
I think that the person who was shot admitted he aimed the gun first at Rittenhouse. Open ur fking eyes and see the truth brainwashed man
There are a lot of unreasonable people out there.
Yeah he was running for it
Literally no way a reasonable person sees this as anything other than self defense. Anybody claiming other wise is just showing you to stay away from them
So that’s how you spell his name lol
Bashing someone over the head 3 times with a skateboard is most certainly deadly force, not even arguably. You'd have to have never actually held a skateboard to think that's debatable. It'll maybe hurt you a bit more than a baseball bat by virtue of being more awkward to hold, but it's essentially the same for the person you're whacking.
@TrucksR US Well said.
It's like the people who think that screwdrivers aren't deadly weapons. If it can be used to kill, then it's potentially a deadly weapon. It depends on the intent of the user, and Huber's intent is pretty obvious.
I know your time was limited but I wish you would have addressed the prosecutor's bringing up Rittenhouse remaining silent or hopefully in future video. For me that was jaw dropping. There other things the prosecutor spent time on like video games and stressing that Rittenhouse had an AR-15 not some other weapon.
The prosecutor was either incompetent or straight up malicious.
@@avatarblood0 malicious. Several former proxecuters have said that incompetence isn't an excuse because it's such a basic thing for prosecuters to follow. They wanted to throw the trial to get another chance at it after they messed up so many times with their witnesses.
Well the AR15 should speak to intent, insofar as choice of weapon suggests the work. When people say they have an AR15 for home defense, I laugh because it's an anti-personnel rifle for marksmen at intermediate ranges. It also throws hot brass around, to bounce off the walls and hit you in the face. A decent revolver would therefore be a better choice- and if you're fool enough to go room to room looking for an early night, at least a revolver offers far less leverage coming around a corner for a burglar to wrestle it away.
@@avatarblood0 I think he was both
@@unclejoeoakland lol tell me you don't know anything about guns without telling me you don't know anything about guns
Please include the sound in videos. Kyle running away yelling “friendly friendly friendly, then Rosenbaum yelling “you won’t do shit” and “F**** you” as gunfire is going off and he lunges at Kyle. Then the crowd that knows he is running to police literally visible down the street decide to take law into own hands and chase him yelling “GET Him, CRANIUM HIM!” I can see not including Kyle’s testimony, but it wasn’t his lone testimony that corroborate Rosenbaums overtly aggressive behavior. There is multiple other witnesses describing him saying he would kill and rip hearts out. There is footage of him that night setting fires and screaming “N*******s” in the faces of the people standing there. How can you omit that crucial information? Threats matter especially when they appear to be acted out.
Because this is a youtube video, not a courtroom itself. And I'm pretty sure LE would rather not get demonitized or have any other disciplinary actions taken by RUclips
@@fangsabre Then don't talk about the case. No point in discussing it if its going to be one sided and leave out very crucial details that apply to it.
@@fangsabre ...and you accused me of deflection!?! When facts are presented it seems you are the one who deflects or makes excuses. Are sure you are not studying law at the same college as Binger went to?
this is pathetic how triggered everyone gets. ffs how old is this case and you're either kissing kyles ass or the deadmans asses.
@@scrateswpo1659 I'd say it's a decent enough topic of discussion if we can avoid getting heated about it. Learning from the past helps us craft a better future.
I feel like your political leanings come into these videos alot and take away from the enjoyability
One of the problems of gaige being able to claim self defense is he was chasing a retreating ‘threat’ this makes him the provoker now. He never retreated. As soon as Kyle took his gun off gaige, gaige point his gun at Kyle. (Admited in his own testimony) at that point Kyle shot him.
why didnt he "retreat" directly to the police line when he was first being chased?
@@Ellwood76 that's where he WAS going
@@Ellwood76 not a question that has legal bearing.
@@Ellwood76 he did he was going there the whole time
Why do you comment on stuff without even checking the facts first
@@Ellwood76 he was lol, this is such an easy case and really shows how disingenuous some people are
Duty to retreat? Did you watch the video or trial at all? Rittenhouse literally spent the entire time retreating, and was repeatidly attacked. Imagine lying on the ground and someone kicks you in the head - would you defend yourself, or just stop and wait for the next kick?
"if you kill your enemies, they win."
I am no lawyer and this is not legal advice, but there is no duty to retreat according to Brown v. US, though the standard on what is considered being “attacked” may need to be more clearly defined.
I don't think you're right about rosenbaum and Huber using non-deadly force
That's why you're not a litigator.
@@tylerrhoades4049 no, this was also the argument the defense made in The Rittenhouse case.
Fists and skateboards can absolutely cause great bodily harm and even death
@@tylerrhoades4049
Legal Eagle is a commercial litigator. He is not a criminal defense attorney. Dozens of criminal defense attorneys on RUclips have covered this case and have made it very clear(which they don't need to, because FBI statistics are readily available) that skateboards are can and do cave skulls in, that a single punch can easily cause permanent brain damage, and that the mere act of threatening the use of hands is in and of itself considered an indefensible act in this case.
@@undeadman7676 looooool
@@undeadman7676 that's why skateboards are the weapon of choice over hammers and baseball bats and crowbars, right?
i disagree on the point about grosskreutz.
i doubt he could have had a successful self defence charge like rittenhouse did, because during the trial, he admitted to the defence that rittenhouse did not point or fire his gun at grosskreutz until grosskreutz had pulled out his own gun and was aiming it at rittenhouse.
“Everybody takes a beating sometimes, right?” - James Kraus, Kenosha County ADA office, 11/15/21
Except for comrade LE, he will have his armed guards put anyone down that threatens to beat his metrosexual ass.
@@1dirkmanchest Yeah he wouldn't allow someone to "non lethally" as he claims kick him in the head.
@@Slade951 I know more than a few liberal gun owners that would take him up on that challenge and kick it square in its elite smug supercilious face and break those expensive veneers off in its face.
Actual hard working liberal workers that have no use for bougie cognac sipping elitists that have no real connection to men and women that have worked long hard hours without a silver spoon in a their privileged pie holes.
@@1dirkmanchest make/save/invest some money fam. most of them didnt get there by sittin on they ass. if you work hard enough, you can become an "elite" and you probably wouldnt have those violent thoughts goin thru ya head
This should be quoted in court by every person in Kenosha accused of domestic violence.
I'm confused. How would the verdict have changed if Kyle had a duty to retreat? He was actively retreating immediately prior to every single shooting.
Dont be confused. He acted as if he had the duty, he didnt want to shoot anyone, or he would have earlier.
You're asking too many questions. Just accept that you're a racist and shut up. 😂
Maybe the first one? Where someone raised a gun to him? Maybe he could have fled there, but I'm no expert.
@@frazzleface753 thats some very low energy commentary.
It wouldn't change, because he retreated anyway.
The fact that Rosenbaum had repeatedly been threatening to kill everybody at Car Source obviously didn't help his chances of staying alive .
And it helped the Jury in determining self defence by Rittenhouse.
I don't get this rationale as if anything this seems to reflect the opposite. I'd say it did push the jury in their verdict even though that doesn't make sense for other reasons, but nobody else was trying to kill the guy and if anything they were just staying away from the guy. The other victims were responding to the shooting of Rosenbaum which goes against this line of thinking.
@@dustynesmith You don't understand why a jury might have found a kid used reasonable force in defending himself by shooting dead a convicted pedo who spent all night threatening to kill him and then chased him down a street and tried to rip his gun out of his hands?
@@bjchit I understand why. Juries are morons. They let killers walk free all the time.
@@dustynesmith Only moron is the one who thinks 3 convicted criminals attacking a 17 year old unprovoked are "victims".
@@bjchit He shot at 4 people, so I thank you for admitting you didn't watch the trial and don't know jack shit about it. Go troll elsewhere, klansman.
LE: "You should watch the trial"
People that watched the trial in the comment section: "YOU should watch the trial."
We gonna cancel LE yet? I got my pitchfork ready.
@@starlord157 Is calling him a lying sack of shit equal to cancellation?
I like your videos usually. But your unwillingness to choose a side hete shows your bias. Not as good a look as you think it is. You left out multiple facts.
No, he’s cleary picking the side against Kyle, like a total clown
@@antuanperez426 I think it's quite obvious that although he doesn't like Kyle, since morally he shouldn't have been there and he likely went with the intention of shooting people, but he knows Kyle didn't commit murder in a legal sense. How is it picking a side against somebody if you agree with that person's side?
@@araccoonstolemyradiator 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Holy cope. Let’s see how you react when your life is in danger in a riot. 🤡🤡
@lastrolo dude went to what he knew was a violent leftist riot and started walking around with a gun. Idk about you, but if I walked into the Capitol on January 6th and started waving my gun around, I'm sure I'd get attacked extremely fast since I wouldn't be trusted to not shoot at my political opponents.
Don't get me wrong either, the bad people in this were definitely the rioters and they should have gotten worse legal punishments than they did. That doesn't mean he should have gone there though.
@@araccoonstolemyradiatorwhy are you dumb? He was already there before the riot , he was there because it was his community and the onky evidence of him wanting to shoot protesters its a post were he says he would like to shoot shoplifters something he never did.
This feels like the most reluctant way to say Rittenhouse defended himself.
Maybe so but I feel like the moral of the story here is there is tons of gray area in this case based on the laws discussed
This comment feels like the quickest way to say “I was too dumb to understand everything the lawyer said, I just need an answer so I can validate my own beliefs.”
The entire point of this channel is to explain intrude legal terminology for people who are not within that circle and not privy to that sort of information.
If this is your first video on his channel, go watch more and you’ll see the same formula.
He provided us with the legalese in a way we could understand. Just because your attention span is the same as a Goldfish, doesn’t mean all of us have that too. Shut up and watch the video
It’s called a nuance conversation
@@itsjohnnyr8560 except this is with his personal bias to get internet points, rather than giving his viewers the correct and important details of the case. Sure its good for business, but hes leaving out key details so much that he tried to justify Kyle's attackers with self defense
20:00 getting head kicked or kicked in general especially while on the ground is considered deadly force and so is being hit with a skateboard
skateboards make very effective weapons. good mass and narrow side, that cracks an skull wide open good.
Look up security guard hit in head with skateboard in NY city. See what kind of damage a skateboard can do.
Look, sometimes you just have to take the beating
@seb asstion that was one of the prosecutors arguments is sometimes you just gotta take a beatinh
Okay, how about a bag of clothes? Two people were killed.
22:20 Objection Misstating the evidence. The problem with the Grossgreits(spelling?) argument is kyle was actively running away from him at this point and no longer presenting an immediate danger and arguably has regained his innocence at this point in the confrontation. This is apparent by Gross himself running up to kyle and questioning him as he ran away. No reasonable person would run up to someone who they thought was an active shooter or a danger to themselves and angrily demand answers. Its just not reasonable.
Again, it goes both ways. In the Tucson shooting of Gabby Giffords, unarmed people approached and subdued the shooter. Is that "unreasonable"? What reasonable unarmed person would approach an armed person who has already demonstrated the intent to kill? As for attempting to subdue versus angry questioning, the attempt to, you know, "ask questions first, shoot later" is arguably more reasonable over the inverse. And the intent was to question, not self-defense. That would, at worst, constitute provocation which brings us back to the arguments that supported Rittenhouse, but for the other party. In other words, any justification for Rittenhouse's conduct can arguably be granted to any of the parties involved. They all could have legally killed one another. It was a free-for-all -- fun to think about.
Thanks for trying to drop a formal objection in your RUclips comment hot take though. Your law degree and bar certification will be arriving via certified mail in six to eight weeks.
Grosskreutz became the provocateur when he initiated an interaction with a retreating Rittenhouse. He pulled a gun out after chasing Kyle. Therefore he needed to apply that duty to retreat as the provocateur before deadly force would be acceptable, which he most certainly did not meet.
Right, dude pulled out his gun and chased after kyle while he was literally running to turn himself in.
@@thebeeemill did you even watch the video?
It could be argued as reasonable. There are lots of circumstances of people confronting and challenging active shooters or shooters in general. Especially if it's a dynamic situation and multiple people (who might be the potential shooter) are carrying weapons.
I can't believe people are still arguing about this. There are hours of footage that clearly show what happened. Choosing not to see the truth in those videos is just denial at this point.
And what is the truth?
@@Trottelheimer its selfdefense. the only reason you can not see that is if you are politically entrenched and see rittenhouse as your opponent.
in both situations, rittenhouse tried to remove him self from said situation.
in both situations, he was attacked first.
in both situations, he had to fear for his life or great bodily harm.
moraly and legaly, its self defense.
Rittenhouse had no business being there. He shot three people. He didn't try to give medical attention to the three people he shot.
He fled area after shooting three people.
He failed to turn himself in to police after shooting three than crossed a state line after committing felonies to go home.
Rittenhouse should of gone to prison 10 years minimum
@@puellamservumaddominum6180 rittenhosue had more reason being there then any of the people he shot.
he did not try to give medical attention to the people he shot because there was a hostile mob that just tried to kill him, remember?
he did not flee the area but was running towards police to turn him self in (we have that on video). that they told him in no uncertain terms to leave is not his fault (we have that on video as well). once home, he did turn him self in.
and.. all of these things having quite literally nothing to do with the question of 'was that self defense?'
@@TheLoki7281 so you really think Rittenhouse couldn't of used his phone to call police? I am sure they would of paid attention if he said he just shot three people.
Jump kick man only "backed away" after kicking Kyle in the Face. You left that out
And the fact that Kyle allowed him to surrender and disengage.
@@tanimal3964 "allowed him to surrender" after attempting to fire a shot at him but missing and instead firing wildly around a crowd of people? Damn dude you will twist reality to whatever you need, wont you?
@@Imbalanxd Firing wildly? Is that what you call only shooting at people who attacked him?
@@rythe24 Hey man, I've got to admit that, since I'm not American, we may have different definitions here. For you I'm sure that firing rounds at point blank range and missing the target while hundreds of people are around you is just another Sunday morning. To me, over here in reality, that's firing wildly.
@@Imbalanxd Well thank you for informing us of your arrogance in your ignorance. Firing two shots at someone that kicks you in the face while you're lying in the street is not firing wildly.
21:38 Grosskreutz was not as justifiable as Rittenhouse - he pursued Kyle.
Kyle- escaping
Grosskreutz- chasing
So no I wouldn’t be happy with Grosskreutz being acquitted.
I wouldn't be happy with Grosskreutz being acquitted either, due to that chase as you mentioned, but you could imagine his testimony including him turning and running from Kyle in the moments before getting shot, thus demonstrating an attempt at a retreat. A lot happens in a few seconds, and if Grosskreutz shot Kyle after Kyle shot him, it would be pretty easy to defend as self defense.
Like Legal Eagle said, today's trend toward vigilantism is bad. Showing up to a confrontation with a gun and claiming you were forced to use it in self defense is a dangerous trend, but it clearly wins cases.
@@diggoran Showing up with a gun isn't provocation. If you're stupid enough to try and take a gun from someone, you are, by law, arming yourself.
Guns are the biggest deterrent as they are the greatest equalizer.
If people like "Legal" Eagle here, want to stop people from protecting property, maybe, I don't know, let police do their job instead of standing by.
Provocation would play a pretty big part there. However, it is technically possible for a jury to find that Grosskreutz did not provoke the incident.
Jurys are always a crapshoot. You never know what you get and what they think about.
@@davidwhidden9337 You really need to compare your homicide statistics with other first world countries. "Deterrent" indeed. To life and liberty.
@@diggoran He might try that, sure, but it is a VERY weak defense. I think the prosecution could shoot that down pretty hard.
So Grosskreutz chased Rittenhouse down, after illegally concealing a firearm, and you as a lawyer say his situation is interchangeable with Kyle's actions? That Grosskreutz felt his life was in danger due to someone running away from him? Someone who never attacked him? Could you clarify how both of thier actions that night would be justified if you have the perspective of Kyle's innocence?
He's at best, misinformed on slef defense laws. At worst, he's intentionally dishonest.
The fact that Kyle didn't shoot Grosskreutz, or anyone else on his way to the police is a pretty solid clue that Kyle wasn't an active shooter just blasting people.
I don't know if a dangerous idiot child with a gun should have been there. He absolutely should have had his gun taken away and sadly nobody managed it safely.
this dude always has bias in his videos, I would not recommend subscribing to him.
@@cadet1ice He's intentionally dishonest and has a clear left-wing bias. You should watch his op-eds.
Stop playing nice buddy. Ran from assailants for over a mile and shot once he was knocked down, cornered, and on the verge of being snuffed... oh and its all recorded. Beyond clear cut self defense and a first year associate would see that.
correction: Kyle did not cross state lines with any firearm.
Exactly. And he was from that town and it was his community.
Why watch the trial when you can get the cliffnotes from CNN and MSDNC?
@@reltius2993 only reason I can think of is to get actual information
Rittenhouse runs, object thrown at him, points gun but does not fire, runs again, turns just before his assailant reaches him, fires.
That's just the first encounter and as far as I'm concerned he showed incredible discipline there. Tried to run and his attacker asked to be shot. The idea that any of this is unclear is why we have such division in our country right now. We can't even agree on who is the aggressor when one guy is running away and the other is chasing him.
Oh, the people who think Kyle is guilty know damn well that he was being chased and was legally justified in defending himself, they just don't care because their devotion to socialism/radical leftist ideology is far more important than their appreciation of the US's legal justice system, which, in their eyes, is a corrupt system worthy of tearing down. They think he was guilty simply because he was, in their eyes, trying to stop people from achieving racial equity by burning poor and minority communities to the ground.
@@jonathanw1019 I don't know that I agree with that. Certainly, that describes why they want to believe in his guilt. That said, I think they actually do believe he was not legally justified because they are being lied to and are too lazy/uninterested in learning the truth.
"Discipline" would've actually been him staying at home and doing chores with his idiot mom. Who the duck let's their 17 year old go to a warzone for an insured business?
@@matthewbittenbender9191 Funny you mention it, but a NYT journalist went to Kenosha to investigate claims of "insured businesses" and found that most of the areas/businesses being burned and looted were in low income areas occupied primarily by smaller, minority owned stores who didn't have insurance. She tried to run it prior to the 2020 election and the NYT editors put it aside.
Also, Kyle had every right to be there, if not more so than the protestors/rioters. Kenosha was more his community than the likes of Grosskruetz or the other two low-lifes who attacked him.
Never mind that people have no obligation to stand aside and watch society burn should the State abscond from their duties to protect its citizens and tax-paying businesses.
Like when a guy calls 911 and admits on tape he has a gun and is chasing an unarmed child through his own neighborhood. The law still sides with the dude with the gun.
The prosecutors did more for Kyles case than his own lawyers did
It honestly seemed like both sides’ lawyers were trying to throw the case.
I died laughing when the prosecutor brought up Kyle being a Call of Duty player.
@@everythingdibs344 if he still plays it today, that might be enough to lock him up lol
@@everythingdibs344 Still amazes me that anyone is trying to blame video games for real world acts. Thought that would have ended after the moral panic of the 90s/00s.
He was a defense attorney in disguise 🥸
i would hope that you are never my lawyer.. i mean cmon you said this was a protest when it is very clearly a riot and everyone in that area had their lives are risk because of it while the police just sat back and let it happen. if the people that have sworn to protect us actually did their damn job people like kyle wouldnt do what they did. your lack of objectivity is a problem.
One correction, he was found not guilty on five of the charges, the sixth was dropped because it was agreed to be not applicable by the prosecution due to the writing of the law.
That's one of the things that told me this guy never even watched the trial.
@@rugbyralph288 "Reviewed the law extensively"
That's a matter of opinion. Ive now watched 3 different reactions to this video with commentary from a total of 10 lawyers and Legal Eagle seems like he doesnt actually know the applicable law. He doesnt even know the facts of the case, and if he does he is deliberately omitting some for personal or partisan reasons.
That's incorrect. The prosecution agreed that it wasn't a short barrel rifle, but still maintained that he was in violation because he did not have a hunting permit. That was 1 of 3 requirements for him to lawfully have the rifle.
20:49 the weak version:
"... jury was right that Kyle DIDN'T use self-defense.."
🧐🧐🧐
@@NYCFenrir The judge still ruled that the prosecution was incorrect in their assessment. At the end of the day it is the judge's job to rule on matters of law and he did. His ruling may not have been the intent of the legislators but if so then it's the legislators fault for failing to make the legislation clear. If a law is ambiguous then it is standard practice to use the most lenient interpretation of the law. Otherwise, you end up punishing people for basically picking the wrong interpretation. After all the law is not just for the judiciary it is also for reference by the general public so that they can make sure that they're adhering to it.
Slow mo distorts the reality of the initial lunge. That drone footage makes it look like their jogging but another camera angle will show Rosenbaum darting towards Rittenhouse. This video didn't mention it but Rosenbaum allegedly made death threats earlier that day.
Yeah, allegedly, Kyle certainly keeps claiming it, but he is caught lying at the protest multiple times. Says he's an EMT, says he didn't shoot Rosenbaum, and also at one point claimed he had a gun. None of those turned out to be true, says he was asked to be there even though the owners say they didn't. He doesn't have a lot of credibility imo.
This video omitted a lot of facts....
@@Samhain23 Another witness said Rosenbaum said that also. Lots of people act like EMT/Medics during these situations that aren't. That is pretty common during these things. Kyle said he didn't shoot Rosenbaum because he was in shock AND knew a mob was going to come for him. Are you really expecting him to be like "oh yeah, I just killed that guy" in that situation? He said he was going to the police to turn himself in for a reason.
Those car lot owners were straight up lawyers. Every other witness discredited what the owners said. Then there was a video after showing the owners talking to Rittenhouse.
@@Samhain23 I believe there were 4 total witnesses to testify that the Pedophile threatened to kill him. Have a nice day.
@@Ka_Gg Hahaha lots of people act like EMT/Medics lol, bro he SAID he was an EMT multiple times. He has no qualifications.
Yeah, if he's a responsible gun owner, or at all capable of bringing a gun, you should expect that you may have to use it. Admitting to what he had done and trying to de-escalate the situation would have gone a long way and maybe people wouldn't have felt so threatened by him that they tried to disarm him.
We all know why though, he was caught on video talking about how he wanted to shoot at some "looters" so he went out there hoping to get a chance. He hung around, with a straw purchased gun that is only legal on a technicality and not something he knew at the time, and hoped he could insert himself into a situation where he could play badass, and he got his chance. I saw his fake ass breakdown on the stand, I saw his interview on Tucker where he sure doesn't seem to be all that traumatized, they were even cutting a documentary of him that dropped the second the verdict came in lol. This is the best thing that ever happened to him, he's now rich and a right wing hero. This is everything he hoped for.
Again, Kyle has was caught lying multiple times, so what he says doesn't hold a lot of water to me unless it can be verified. They discredited what they said? Weird, then why were they not held in contempt for lying, why would they not come forward to say they asked him to be there it would give him a lot of credibility but he won't do it.
Casey Anthony was ruled not guilty, so was OJ, doesn't mean they are innocent.
I didn't know that self-defense includes running after the attacker. How could Grosskreutz use self defense law for himself?
He could of mistaken Kyle running to safety as him running to hurt more people. Not saying that's what he was thinking, but it's possible.
@@godlikemachine645 Hmmmm... It is possible. But that removes 'self-' from 'defense'.
@@godlikemachine645 that's still not self defense
@@Birrrrra self defense laws allow the use of force to prevent harm or potential death from happening to someone else. For example, if you see someone walking around attacking people and causing them harm, you are allowed to step in and stop the attack.
@@cyberhendrix that maybe justified but it still wouldn't count as self defense
21:57 This is a terrible argument. You actually imply that a person who defended himself and is retreating away from people towards the police is free game for a lynch mob.
Kyle: "oh ho, you're still chasing me?"
Mob: "we can't lynch you without getting closer"
If he simply put down the gun and walked away, he wouldn't have been chased.
@@timkramar9729 how do you know? would you bet your life on it, because that's what you're asking Kyle to do in that situation
@@waspie1690 because as soon as he dropped the gun, he would no longer have presented a threat for them to react to.
This is a good reason not to be armed. Plus, being armed, demonstrates to others that you're willing to kill. I am not.
I don't need a weapon to defend myself when attacked. I prefer to have my hands open for defense. You can't apply a lock or hold with something in your hand.
@@timkramar9729 he didn’t put it down because it’s his gun, and was afraid people would go after him, because one person already did. He was scared, and you’re putting weird standards on this kid.
You’re expecting this kid to just assume nobody will see him as a threat after shooting someone? That mob wouldn’t have cared
None of this was murky. It was clear as crystal. It was self defense all day.
And no, Gage Grosskruetz killing Kyle would have been murder because Kyle was the victim and was running away.
I watched the actual video, they video in the trial, uncut and not edited. It’s very easy to see it was self defense.
I think Legal Eagle is a bit pissed that it went the way it went.
I notice there was no mention of the fact that every person Kyle shot was a felon. One was a felon in possession of a gun. There’s your provocation.
You also forgot to mention that the other two Kyle shot was a convicted domestic abuser and a 5 time convicted child rapist... yeah, and people are calling these monsters heroes.
@@savestate6360 you are very correct. Even one of JoJo the boy rider’s victim is pissed that peeled like Eagle here are defending him or portraying him as a hero.
That's completely irrelevant as you can't just tell that someone is a felon and Kyle most likely didn't know that either. So just like what legal eagle was saying that being under age with a firearm isn't a provocation because you can't just tell that someone is underage, being a felon with a gun couldn't have been a provocation on its own. Also what's the relevance of all of them being felons and whether Kyle acted in self defence? Again he wouldn't have known at the time and it didn't influence his decision. You can't just say oh I shot them because they were felons and expect to walk free.
Firstly you're simply taking at face value that Rittenhouse's testimony is fact. That's fine, someone with your amount of brain rot is likely to do that. But then not only are you assuming that, but you're assuming Grosskruetz' has the same brain rot as you, entirely believing whatever Rittenhouse's version of events is, but that he also has omnipotent knowledge of everything that had transpired before their confrontation.
How do you not understand that when you take a gun into a crowd, and shoot someone, even _if_ the person you shot deserved it, nobody else in the crowd knows what you did or why you did it. Now you're just a guy holding a gun with a dead person next to him. Even kids learn at an early age that reality exists outside of their own head, and that not everyone has the same information.
@@Imbalanxd
Prosecutor: So when you pointed your gun at Rittenhouse, that's when he opened fire. Correct?
Grosskruetz: Correct.
When you point a gun at a person who has a gun, then you sacrifice your own safety.
“Maybe Kyle Rittenhouse retreated at every possible opportunity.”
Maybe? He did. The only shots he fired were after trying to run away, and still being pursued and physically attacked.
So is a gun shot, much more so.
@@Michael_B82 what do you mean?
Problem is, now if someone has a gun in a crowd, is he a potential mass shooter or not? Do you have to wait for him to fire his bullets in the crowd before "taking him down"?.
The kid brought a semi automatic weapon, capable of killing several people in a matter of seconds to public space. (And the gas station is not his grandparents shop. This information was false, and not even used in the trial by the defendants). I understand he might have been scared after 3 people confronted him. But what if those 3 people were the "good guys" trying to defend the others from a potential mass shooter?
@@Olvim9474 is it domestic terrorism to blow up a gas station like these criminals planned? The criminals never should have been rioting.
@@nathanreimer1296 The riots happening around are irrelevant. Someone brought a gun to a public space with no consequence. Someone killed 3 persons as “self defence” but cases for self defence can be made for both parties. Did they confront him because he had a gun? Did they think he was starting a mass shooting?
On the other side, there is not a single proof they were attempting to “blow up a station”. Do you know one of three he shots has his medical supplies to help the medics?
Kyle would have been an actual shooter, these three would have been hailed heroes to try stopping him.
"they used non deadly force"
A felon illegally possessing a firearm, and pointing it out you = non deadly force.
ight.
There's very little force that is truly non-lethal. Most is some measure of less-lethal. A skateboard and a boot to the head can both be deadly, even if less often than a firearm (which isn't always lethal either).
Which is all sort of irrelevant because the standard for self defense is great bodily harm, not certain death.
1:53 Is it that hard to follow basic firearms safety in a court house?
As someone who didn't grow up around firearms and has gone through the CCW course in Wisconsin - I can tell you that if you don't have the CCW license or been around firearms long enough, you do not know LMTT. However, I feel it's pretty common knowledge to not point a firearm at anything you don't want to shoot (I knew this before I ever held a firearm).
Sadly, this is the second attorney in a court room that I had seen mishandle a firearm in front of a jury. They really should have a professional train everyone in the court on how to handle a firearm, even if it's been checked and cleared by another when there's a case involving one.
8:30 objection! The gun was kept in the state with his friend Dominic Black. You cannot state that the gun crossed state lines.
The gun was straw purchased for a resident outside of the state and a minor at that.
@@MrBigTrey it was purchesed for someone outside the state, but was still in Kenosha, it didn't crossed state lines
@@MrBigTrey Rittenhouse never took possession of the rifle so it being straw purchase is really kind of a grey area. It always remained at Black's place until that night. So Black was the owner of the rifle and there is no law as far as I know that would prevent Rittenhouse from using it since he is legally able to possess a rifle.
@@MrBigTrey the only time it is legally considered buying a gun for a minor is when you give said gun to the minor after buying it with the intention of letting them keep it.
The gun never even left Kenosha.
@@MrBigTrey Perfectly legal, which is why the underage gun charge was thrown out by the judge. It is legal for a minor in Kenosha to have a long gun at the age of 16. They literally talked about this in court for like an hour and the Prosecutors agreed.
"Sometimes you just have to take a beating."
While the trial was in progress, in my community, an unarmed career criminal, out on probation, beat a 36-year-old Hispanic man TO DEATH. Just saying.
Submit to the mob is something you can haphazardly say when you aren't the one being run down at night while gunshots are going off and people are shouting and running at you.
It's not your life or health on the line, so what if some Kenosha kid gets brain damage when his head hits the pavement or worse. You go about your life all the same.
You can't live your life with the hindsight to trust people that, in real hindsight, were actually criminals to begin with. If someone runs you down knowing you are armed, they have far worse intentions than just disarming you. It is self evident.
What exactly are you "just saying"? How is that relevant to anything in this video??
@@KrazyKaiser If you watched the trial, and not just an extremely distorted take of it, you would know that in the closing statements, the prosecution told the jury 'Sometimes you just have to take a beating'. The OP is giving an example of what can happen when you 'take a beating', and why Rittenhouse was absolutely within his rights to defend himself.
@@jackoh991 All I'm "claiming" is that "taking a beating" can kill you, with proof.
@@jackoh991
Firstly, LEagle mentioned racial statistics IN THIS VIDEO and completely overlooked the fact that Kyle Rittenhouse himself IS a minority.
Kyle Rittenhouse is Hispanic. That's why it's important.
Rosembaum, an unarmed career child diddler who was released from a mental institution THAT NIGHT went to a racial protest, yelled racial slurs, made death threats, and then assaulted a minor. The case of Kyle Rittenhouse is MUCH WORSE, and the fact you're not aware of why shows why LEagle is a failure as an educator.
You can spot bias pretty quickly, depending on who says "The protests" "The riots", or simply "The events of"
What a great observation
Well it's bias if the event is an protest and someone calls it a riot. And the reverse is true. If a riot is going on and someone calls it a protest they're clearly bias too.
No.. The people who say this was a protest are bias, the people who say this was a riot are objectively factual. One might even have called it an act of domestic terrorism since the goal here was to inflict harm and spread fear for the sake of political/ideological means..
Not really. Because a protest and riots were going on at the same time. I have no issue with protests, but am not a fan of riots, and given the extensive criminal history of everyone who attacked Kyle, it is hard to accept they were there to merely voice their displeasure via peaceful means.
The events of the night in question had protesters. observers, rioters, and militia, these are all facts, how is this bias?
Trying to steal gun chasing him, chased down hit with a skateboard, literally admitted to pointing a gun at him…..that’s self defense