So Then This Happened
By Mitch Berg
During testimony yesterday in the Kyle Rittenhoue trial, Gaige Grosskreuz – the “medic” with the illegally-concealed who was shot while chasing Rittenhouse with an illegally-concealed Glock – this happened:
In this, Grosskreutz admits – after a half-hour of cross-examination by defense attorney Chirifisi – that his actions justified Rittenhouse’s claim of self-defense against him, and likely Huber as well. The admission above takes place at 3:23 of the video below; the preceding several minutes of the defense cross-examination is fascinating….
…as Chirifisi slowly backs Grosskreutz into telling the truth, is fascinating to watch.
As was the prosecutor’s classic facepalm.
Defense attorney Andrew Branca blogged about the day’s events. He’s scathing to ADA Binger.
As I stepped through the cross-examination of Grosskreutz today, I identified no fewer than 19 substantive portions, nearly 50% of the total time spent on cross by Attorney Chirafisi, that were substantively destructive to the State’s narrative of guilt, and helpful to the defense narrative of self-defense. It was harder to identify the parts to leave out of today’s end-of-day post than it was to select the parts to keep in.
“Directed verdict” – a judge telling a jury that the facts leave only one possible choice – is what the lawyers in the windows on the left of the screen start yelling. I suspect that’s unlikely, although less so than the belief in some quarters that the judge should toss the whole trial, which just isn’t going to happen; someone would gin that into grounds for an appeal, and then you’re one judge away from having to go through the whole thing again.
In the course of this trial, I’ve learned one important thing; the big lesson I took away from carry permit class 16 years ago has changed. The defense no longer has to prove the major elements of their case; they have the burden of providing evidence of self-defense; the prosecution then has to prove that any one of the following five standards for self-defense wasn’t met:
1. Innocence – the defendant didn’t start the altercation
2. Proportionality – they used only the force necessary to stop the threat
3. Imminence – the lethal force was used in response to something going on at that moment; not the day before, not some future threat.
4. Reasonableness – the defendant reasonably believed they were going to die.
5. Avoidance – the defendant tried to avoid the episode. Note – even in a Stand your Ground or Castle situation, judges will often advise juries it’s best to try to avoid the use of lethal force.
It seems obvious that the prosecution’s case in the Huber and Grosskreutz shootings fell apart yesterday. The Rosenbaum shooting may be a little closer fought, but I think there’s at least reasonable doubt so far…
…and the defense still hasn’t presented its case.
Just to be clear – killing is a tragedy, and it’s best not to be where one expects violence to happen. The law – and, in places like Minneapolis and Kenosha, politics – aren’t fond of citizens defending their property. Be aware of this.
But hopefully this past two years, and a good mid-term at the state and federal level, start changing that.
November 9th, 2021 at 11:56 am
Defense is really “flexing” on the prosecution at this point.
Out of the two people pointing a gun, which had previously shot other people? Out of the two people pointing a gun, who shot the other?
November 9th, 2021 at 12:10 pm
^ So, you gonna answer these questions? And explain why you find them significant?
November 9th, 2021 at 12:21 pm
This is looking more and more like a case that was brought for political reasons.
I assume the prosecutor is competent, why put on a witness who you know will harm your case unless you are pressured to pursue a case that never should have been brought before a jury?
November 9th, 2021 at 12:52 pm
A is minding his own business.
B tries to kill A.
A, unable to retreat, shoots B in self-defense.
C, seeing this, starts chasing A, who trips and falls.
C runs up pointing a gun at A lying on the ground, unable to flee.
A shoots C in self-defense.
Mitch laid out the elements of the law. Seems to me this scenario is perfectly possible and completely legal, particularly during a riot. Anyone who snarks differently, explain why it’s not.
November 9th, 2021 at 1:17 pm
All of the witnesses, including a detective that testified today, illustrated by their testimony that Rittenhouse was threatened and or attacked before Rittenhouse fired. I never saw whether or not “Mr. Medic”, actually had a. medic training and/or if he had any actual first aid supplies on him.
November 9th, 2021 at 3:55 pm
The question that comes to mind for me is whether, and when, the DA knew that his witnesses were going to systematically destroy the claim that Rittenhouse had no reasonable claim of self-defense. If it comes out as it appears now, we’re going to need to ask the question of whether the DA was incompetent and ought to be disbarred, or if he was malicious and ought to be disbarred and imprisoned.
If “the process is the punishment” in many cases, we need to start laying down the law to rogue prosecutors.
Nice try to divert attention, Emery, but the question at hand here is not whether Rittenhouse shot people. It is whether those shootings constitute self-defense.
November 9th, 2021 at 3:58 pm
The end result will be a plea of temporary insanity – by the prosecutor!
November 9th, 2021 at 6:27 pm
To add a few more details:
1) Testimony that Rosenbaum threatened to kill Rittenhouse, attacked and had gunshot residue consistent to having been 1-4 feet from Rittenhouse
2) Testimony that Rittenhouse only shot people attacking him
3) Testimony that Rittenhouse had reason to fear death or grave bodily injury
And that was from the prosecution witnesses
What Grosskreutz thought is entirely irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if he thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter. All that matters is that Rittenhouse had a reasonable belief that Grosskreutz presented an immediate threat. Running up with a gun pointed at Rittenhouse would sure seem to meet that requirement.
November 9th, 2021 at 7:44 pm
I was hoping the antifa medic would be swinging a limp tyrannosaurus arm around…little disappointed.
Still, he’s gonna have to perfect a left hand draw before he reports for medic duty at the next riot.
November 10th, 2021 at 6:50 am
Cardinal rule of litigators: never ask a question to which you do not know the answer.
November 10th, 2021 at 7:46 am
One good thing came out of this trial. We now have proof that Shakespeare was correct – fae creatures exist and interact with our world to influence human behavior.
The prosecutor called a last-second witness, a detective, to interpret a grainy video of the shooting. The video was apparently taken from a civilian drone (not the FBI one, an amateur one). The state could not have disclosed this vital evidence to the defense earlier as the state didn’t have it: the Evidence Fairy dropped it on the prosecutor’s doorstep the night before.
Fairies are capricious spirits you know, it’s to be expected these little things will happen. Not the state’s fault those rascally fae withheld evidence until the last moment. And certainly not proof this whole trial is a shameful parody of justice.
Sure, I believe that. Pixies hide my stuff all the time, generally car keys or eyeglasses but videos which clinch the case, why not? Nothing suspicious here, nosiree Bob.
November 10th, 2021 at 9:49 am
The pixie that delivered the video was late because it was delayed (and tired) from delivering boxes of ballots in New Jersey.
November 10th, 2021 at 10:03 am
Yeah, it’s normal to be underage and travel to another state with weapons. Nothing to see here.
The government has established
1) Kyle Rittenhouse was the perp for two homicides/one aggravated assault w/deadly weapon
2) One of the victims was unarmed and the fatal shot was in the back.
November 10th, 2021 at 10:27 am
One thing I learned in carry permit class is that if you’re the physical superior of the person you’re attacking–in terms of size, muscularity, or fighting skill–you are for all practical purposes armed. Talk to Vanna and see if you can buy a clue, Emery.
November 10th, 2021 at 10:41 am
The prosecution has established they’re incompetent and criminal for charging someone who committed self-defense.
November 10th, 2021 at 11:17 am
[…] we’ve documented the proceedings in the Rittenhouse trial, I’ve noted the scabrous, depraved slant in the […]
November 10th, 2021 at 11:21 am
“The government has established
1) Kyle Rittenhouse was the perp for two homicides/one aggravated assault w/deadly weapon
2) One of the victims was unarmed and the fatal shot was in the back.”
No, you fucking numpty.
I watched the trial live yesterday, and am watching it live right now.
Yesterday, the antifa medic admitted Kenosha Kyle didn’t fire until the medic ran at him while pointing a gun he wasn’t legally allowed to carry, directly at Kyle. The prosecutor put his head in his hands at that point.
Today, the prosecution called the ME, who established Kyle shot the pedophile in the head, the chest and the hand after he grabbed the gun, and he established skateboard bro got shot through the heart and lungs after he hit Kyle, and was getting ready to hit him again.
No one got shot in the back; you’re a fucking liar…again.
The government tried to establish Kyle was the perp for two homicides/one aggravated assault w/deadly weapon, and they failed miserably.
I’m watching a live stream on a lawyer’s YouTube channel. There are 6 criminal lawyers commenting remotely…well face palming and laughing actually. They have all concluded the trial is over, and Kenosha Kyle is going to exit the courtroom in hero’s robes.
Once again, rat Emery has been proven to be a liar and a low IQ numpty.
You can watch the stream here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRYhUSFaa9U
November 10th, 2021 at 12:24 pm
The judge has had the route with the loser prosecutor throwing up Hail Marys and has ripped into him for his ignorance. The fact the Rittenhouse took the stand, is unusual, but he’s defending himself very well.
Go back down into your mommy’s basement, Emery. Quit while you’re behind.