interviews, things like that about what happened sf. >> i do my best to avoid what people write on the internet, a majority of it is not true. >> you also sat here through eight days of trial, correct? >> yes. >> and you had the opportunity to watch all of the videos. >> yes. >> if you could please let me finish my question before answering and i will do my best to let you finish your answer before i go on to the next question, fair? >> yes. >> you also had the opportunity to listen to the testimony of all 30-some witnesses that testified so far, correct? >> yes. >> after all of that now you're telling us your side of the story, correct? >> correct. >> can i ask you folks to go on the record for just a second to talk about the case.

good day, this is mitchell reports watching the cross-examination starting the prosecution of kyle rittenhouse as he takes the stand today. we're getting new details from him, his perspective of what happens on that fatal day. with me here in the studio,

danny sivalis. excuse me, let's listen to the judge who is uping in. >> talk about the defendants silence and that is, in your right on the borderline. and you may be over, but it better stop. >> understood. >> this is, i can't think of the case, the initial case on it, but it is not permitted. all right, ask the jury to come in, please. >> out of the hearing of the jury, the judge just chastised the prosecutor, strongly, at the beginning of this cross-examination and said that

he is out of line. he can't think of a case where this kind of questioning went in this direction, and the jury is now being brought back in. of course the jury will not have heard any of that, but they did hear the beginning of the prosecution's cross as kyle rittenhouse strongly defending his position that he was not the aggressor in these fatal shootings. this is a very weak opening for the prosecution on cross. >> the first few questions were you used deadly force, didn't you? >> and the rules of gun safety, you shoot to stop the threat, not shoot to kill. we all know that he used deadly force. the key is whether or not the prosecution can disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did so in self defense. opening with you used deadly force, maybe not the best

questioning. >>. >> resuming the cross-examination. >> that weapon with 30 rounds is capable of killing at least 30 people, correct? >> yes. >> you arranged to have dominic black purchase that weapon for you in lady smith, wisconsin, in early may of 2020, is that correct? >> we were up north shooting, not shooting, we were going camping and dominic black brought his rifle, and we were talking and i was like what if we get a rifle for me, i'll give you the money, you can purchase it, it's yours until i'm 18.

i bought the rifle for dominic, and i can use it, but once i'm 18, we can do a private sale and we can have it turned over to my name once i turn 18. >> because you knew, as a 17-year-old, you could not have that gun, correct? >> i knew i could not buy that gun. >> you knew you would not possess that gun also, correct? >> no. >> you're not aware that under wisconsin law -- >> what he thinks on the subject is not -- so, umm, it was unlawful for him to purchase the gun. it was not just unlawful for you to purchase it, it was unlawful for you to bring it home. >> in illinois i could not because i did not have a firearm owner identification card in illinois. >> you knew in illinois that you could not get that until you turned 18, correct?

>> no, you can get it at 16 in illinois. >> but you did not have one? >> i did not. >> even after the gun was purchased for you in may, you never got one after that either, did you? >> i applied for one in may of 2020, but due to the charges, there was a backlog in illinois for the foid card, but after you filed the charges against me it was denied because of the charges here in the state. >> you found out about that after you were criminally charged in the case? >> i found out in november of 2020, a letter was sent to my old residence. >> you knew that would that foid card, the gun could not go back to your residence in illinois, correct? >> correct. >> and you agreed it would be kept at dominic black's stepfather's house in kenosha, correct? >> because he had a safe, yes. >> and you agreed you would not have access to that gun,

correct? >> we agreed that the only time i would use the gun is when i was with him and we would go to like the bristol shooting range or up north to his land. >> but the only time prior to the night of august 25th, 2020, the only time you used that gun was in lady smith, correct? >> correct. >> but you didn't go to the bristol shooting range ever. >> i did, not with that rifle. >> you didn't ever go to the bristol shooting range with that gun, correct? >> correct. >> and you picked out that gun because dominic had one, correct? >> yeah. >> you could have, if you wanted to, chosen from any number of guns that were for sale, fair enough? >> that were at that store there were not many, but yes. >> i'm sure the store in lady

smith isn't the only store that sells guns, correct? >> isn't it correct that there are other places to purchase guns besides that one store in lady smith, wisconsin. >> i believe so, but that's where we're at, so that's where we got the gun. >> and you, if you wanted to, you could have given him money to purchase money at other locations. >> didn't cross my mind, but now that you say it, yeah. >> why did you want him to buy, for you, an ar-15 as opposed to a pistol or a shotgun or some other type of rifle? >> i cannot legal possess or carry a pistol because i'm not 18. in wisconsin i believe it is 18 in wisconsin for a pistol. but with the rifle, i knew i could possess that rifle. i knew i could not buy it, but i

knew i could take it to the shooting range or possess it. and with shotguns they didn't have any in stock, that was my original plan to get a shotgun for trap shooting, but there were not any at that store and i didn't want to go to walmart and buy one. >> so your understanding at that time is that wisconsin law prohibited you as a 17-year-old from possessing a pistol, but you could have an ar-15? >> yes. >> what was that understanding based on? >> the understanding was based on when we would go up north we were, it was me, dominic, and my sister and we were allowed to carry the rifles around and the officers over there said it was fine. >> i'm going to move to strike this hearsay of what officers would have told him.

>> none of this is admissible, what the defendant believes the law to be, what the district attorney believes the law to be, what the defense believes the law to be are irrelevant. when i instruct you what the law of wisconsin is pertaining to the possession of a firearm by a person under 18 and that will be the source of your knowledge. i'm allowing the testimony right now because it bears on -- there is an old maxim, ignorance of the law is not an excuse. ignorance of the criminal law is not an excuse. if you commit a criminal act, whether or not you knew it was criminal or not, you're

responsible for your conduct because you're responsible to know the law. it is not relevant except in this case. there are specific issues about his awareness and knowledge about certain conduct that is relevant on some issues. it is quite complicated. hopefully it will sort out at the end. s that -- that's why i'm allowing this, but what they're saying is not necessarily contract in regards to the law. >> so you're telling us the reason that you wanted dominic to buy you an ar-15 as opposed to a pistol, the only reason, was because you felt you could not lawfully possess a pistol. >> correct. >> you didn't pick it out for

any other reason. i thought it looked cool, but no. >> you didn't pick it out because you want today go hunting with it, did you? >> no. >> you didn't pick it out because you were going to use it to protect your house, correct? >> correct. >> you picked it up because it looked cool? i thought it looked cool, i guess that is a reason, yes. >> it resembles the type of weapon in first-person shooter games? >> i don't really play first-person shooter video games, i have. but i think there is a variety of guns including shotguns, pistols, there are gun that's resemble all guns. >> isn't it true when you would hang out with dominic black you would play call of duty and other first person shooter games. >> sometimes. >> and then you would use guns like ar-15s to shoot anyone that comes at you, correct? >> it's a video game where two

players are playing together, i don't really understand the meaning of your question to be honest. >> isn't one of the things people do in these video games is try to kill erin else with your guns? >> yeah, the video game, it's just a video game, it's not real life. >> now you introduced yourself aslying in walworth couth by right now. on the date this happened you were an illinois resident, correct? >> correct. >> you grew up in illinois. >> correct. >> you did not spend any significant time living here in wisconsin. >> no. >> i spent time at my father's house, i have partially lived here, also, so no that's not correct. >> you said you attended penn

foster high school? >> yes. >> that is an online high school? >> so you were not attending in person? >> no. >> so at the time that all of the things in this case were happening from the time the ar-15 was purchased to the night of august 25th, you were 17 years old that entire time, correct? >> correct. >> can we have exhibit number 7 up, please?

>> i have exhibit number seven up on the screen, do you recognize that? >> yes, that is my old tiktok account. >> that was an account you had in the summer of 2020, correct? >> yes. >> and it says your name on there? kyle? >> yes. >> your user name on tiktok was four doors more whores. >> yes. >> and that is a picture, correct? >> and you have the phrase bruh, i'm just tryin be famous. is that correct? >> yes. >> you're the one that wrote that? >> yes. >> you testified that at some

point you were involved in some sort of emt cadet program. >> i was an emt firefighter cadet at the antioch fire department. >> when was that? >> i was a cadet at the antioch fire department i believe from 2018 or 2019 up until the incident on august 25th. >> a cadet is someone that is just beginning the process of eventually achieving full emt certification? >> no. >> were you studying to be an emt before august 25th 2020? >> i was learning about certain things in the field of firefighting and ems. >> but that is not formal classes, is it? >> no, we would meet once a week

and depending on the day we would either do airways or firefighter stuff like hose drags and learning how to crawl through buildings. >> and these are things that you did with antioch fire department? >> yes. >> you weren't a member, were you? >> i was. >> you were an actual on duty member on the roster of the antioch fire department? >> no, no. >> when you say you were a member, what do you mean? >> i was a member of the fire cadet program, we were issued shirts. we would help with the pancake breakfast, and we would wear staff shirts, i still have one in my closet. >> you are not a member of the antioch fire department, correct? >> i was a member of the ka debt program through the fire department. >> so you would go out and fight

fires? >> we could go on ride alongs, but we can't go to burning buildings. >> you would go out and save people from burning buildings. >> not me personally. >> as a cadet they would not let you near that, right? >> they would not let a cadet go into a live fire. >> at the end of whatever this program is, you were not going to be an official firefighter, were you? >> no, it is to help prepare you for the firefighter and emt academy. >> and you weren't going to be an emt either, were you? >> no. >> you know that to be an emt you have to be 18 and a high school graduate, correct? >> depending on the state in illinois you can take a class at the college at 16 and you can have your emt license by the age of 17. i was not in that class, but in illinois you can. >> you didn't do any of that? >> no i was in online school.

>> you're in kenosha wilson saying you were an emt, correct? >> yes. >> that was a lie? >> yes. >> and you were telling people you were 18 or 19 years old? that was a lie too, correct? >> no, i didn't tell anyone my age. >> you didn't volunteer it, right? >> i didn't. >> you knew as a 17-year-old you shouldn't have been there? >> no, i just didn't find it relevant to give my age to anyone. it wasn't something that came up in conversation. >> because you felt if people found out how old you were they would realize you should not have been there? >> no, because it just didn't come up in conversation. if someone would have asked i would have been like yeah, i'm 17. >> you felt as a 17-year-old it was appropriate for you to be on the streets of kenosha with about ar-15 that night, right?

>> i felt i had the same right as anyone else. >> as an adult? >> yes. >> but you weren't an adult? >> no. >> you said you worked at the rec plex and the ymca before that, correct? >> correct. >> and you got furloughed there when covid hit in march? >> yes. >> and you only started working at the rec plex on august 14th, correct? >> i believe i was hired before that, but i was on vacation august 14th, so i could not -- i could not start until august 14th. >> your first time was on august 14th, correct? >> i believe that was my first day. >> and then you worked a few weeks after that. >> and until august 24th,

correct? >> you worked a total of 41.5 hours at the rec plex, correct? >> if that's the number you got. >> and you were a life guard, you walked around the swim area with a red long life saving thing monitoring the pool? >> a rescue tube, correct? >> the indoor pool? >> i don't know if you're particular with the rec plex, i guarded the water park area and the competition pool. >> so a water park area with a slide and a zero entry pool. >> yes. >> and next to that a larger almost olympic size pool where swim meets happen. >> yeah, 50 meter competition pool divided in half to make it 25. >> you were lifeguarding at both of those? >> yes. we would rotate. we had three-person shifts and we would rotate out watching the

different areas. >> you indicated that at no time did this gun ever leave the state of wisconsin, is that correct? >> other than the night after -- other than that -- >> before the shootings, correct? >> correct. >> there was a time you want it had with you in illinois, i think there was a time that me and dominic were mad at each other, yeah. >> you were mad at dominic? >> we were mad over something. >> and you wanted to have the gun with you down there. >> i think i said something along those lines. >> you would agree with me that let me back up for a second here. you testified that you used deadly force against joseph

rosenbaum, the man that attempted to kick you in the face, and gaige crosskreutz because you felt your life was in danger, correct? >> yes. >> and you are telling this jury that it was, in your mind, justified to use deadly force to protect your own life, correct? >> yes. >> you agree that you were not allowed to use deadly force to protect that building, correct? >> i was not using deadly force to protect the property. i used deadly force to protect myself. >> please listen to my question and answer if you can. you agree that you were not using deadly force to protect that car source building, correct? >> yes. >> you agree that you were not allowed to use deadly force to stop someone from smashing the windows of an unoccupied parked

car, correct? >> i don't think you can use deadly force for that. >> you cannot use deadly for for lighting a dumpster on fire, correct? >> correct. >> you cannot use deadly force to stop someone from tipping a porta potty, correct? >> yes. >> you cannot use deadly force to stop someone from lighting a flat bed trailer on fire. >> correct. >> you cannot use deadly forced to stop someone who is about to start an unoccupied car on fire, correct? >> correct. >> you cannot use deadly force to stop someone from lighting track cones in the middle of the street on fire, correct? >> correct. >> so you understand there is a difference between using deadly force to protect yourself and using it to protect your

property. >> you profitably wished that you had your ar-15 to protect someone's property, correct? >> i'm going to ask you to go into the library again for a moment, please. please don't talk about the case. please please don't talk about the case paul is a former prosecutor, picking up where the judge intervened? >> he is sending the jury out unexpectedly. he is getting into the area of things that kyle might have said. he is doing the thing again when

he asks about what he thinks the law is. >> the rulings, or attempting to provote a miss trial. he knows he can't go into this, he is asking the questions. i ask the course to strongly admonish him and the next timely ask for a mistrial with prejudice. he is an experienced attorney and he knows better. >> first of all, your honor. this is the subject of emotion. i'm well aware of that, and the court left the door open. >> for me, not for you. my understanding -- >> you should have come and asked for reconsideration. you did on the one motion, and i granted your motion for reconsideration. >> that was not a motion. >> excuse me, i did, i

granted -- >> we did not motion -- >> we did not file any motion, it was their motion for reconsideration. but i said i denied it, i indicated a bias towards denial is what i did. i held it up with a bias towards denial. why would you think that made it okay for you without any advanced notice to bring this matter before the jury. you are already, you are, i was astonished when you began your examination by commenting on the department's post arrest silence. that's basic law. it has been in this country for 40 or 50 years. i have no idea why you would do something like that and it gives -- i will leave it at that. i don't know what you're up to. >> can i respond? >> yes. >> we filed another motion on this exact issue because in my

mind, and i argued this, it is identical to what is going on the night on august 25th in the sense that the defendant was using the same chemical weapon -- same weapon in a manner to try to protect property. >> no he wasn't. >> i'm not going to rehash the motion. that is untrue. your arguments of record, my comments are of record, and why i ruled as i did is of record. there is nothing i heard in this trial to suggest that anything has changed, even if you're correct in your assumption that you know more than i did at the time. you should have come to the court to say i want to go into this. why you would think that you can go into it without any advanced notice to the court i don't understand that. as the defense is pointing out you're an experienced trial lawyer and this should not have been gone into. >> your honor, there is testimonies in the case they

believe opens the door to this. for example the defense introduced evidence that the department pointed a gun at a man wearing yellow pants because that person was on a car on the car source lot. there is no justification that i can think of of why the department would point that gun of someone. he justified that he agreed with that person at the yellow pants, he said i was joking, but he acknowledged that he told the person in the yellow pants, yeah, you're right, i did point a gun at you when you were sitting on a car. he is agreeing. may i fish, i would like a chance to make a record without being interrupted if that is okay. he is mentioned that he acknowledged that he used this gun to protect property. he also just acknowledged that he knows he can't do that. i'm attempting to impeach him now with the prior august 10th

incident, 15 days prior, involving the same gun where he is threatening to use that gun to protect property. >> he didn't have the gun with him. >> your honor, he is saying he wished he did so he could shoot people. >> there is a lot of difference between commenting about something when you don't have a gun and threatening someone when you do. >> it is interesting because the entire defense theory is joseph rosenbaum. >> i would like to respond to what you just said. >> can you slow down, please. >> i apologize, madame court reporter, i would like to make a record. i think there is an essential part of the case that he is making threats that he has no ability to carry out. you're arguing that this august 10th incident, one aspect that you believe it's not relevant is the defendant didn't have the

gun with him. the jury is being told because of those threats, the near verbal threats that have been shown to this jury and used as a basis for someone's subsequent actions. i'm attempting, with the department, to use his mere verbal threat on august 10th, 15 days prior, that he is going to shoot shoplifters with his ar-15 to inpeach the defendant in a murder trial. i apologize, your honor, i probably should have brought this to your attention earlier. i may have misunderstood your ruling. i thought your ruling that was if the evidence in this case made that more relevant you would admit or consider it's admittance. i believe based on the evidence that we heard and more specifically exactly what the defendant said earlier, pointing

a gun at someone sitting on a car, that is the door is open to this testimony. i believe that is state of mind, his self defense, i understand that, but now we're in the middle of trial and there is a lot of evidence that comes in that i think makes this relevant. i'm attempting to impeach the defendant on his beliefs. i believe i'm entitled on his beliefs and his statements. >> i think that is what they call -- >> his statements, too, your honor. he just said can't use deadly force, can't threaten to use deadly force for protecting property. so now i'm impeaching him on that. >> your honor, the court, just so this record is clear in spite of the lengthy statement, before we started today, the court

specifically stated in his presence that there has been nothing to have me change any of my rulings. there is numerous occasions in this trial where where that opened the door. one more time, the reason he doesn't like guns, and i said something, i whispered in his ear, it's because of the prior convictions, please stop, and he did. he knows if you're going into something excluded in a pretrial order you better ask the court and get permission. this is ridiculous. >> it was excluded because it was propensity evidence nap is exactly what 90404 is designed to prevent. you're talking about his attitudes. his attitude is that he wants to shoot people. i admitted that kind of evidence in other trials when it has been

appropriate. i didn't admit it in this case because to me what i have heard in this trial, and mr. richards is absolutely correct that just hours ago i said i heard nothing in the trial to change any of my rulings, so why -- >> that was before this testimony, your honor. >> don't get brazen with me. you knew very well. you know very well that an attorney can't go into these types of areas when the judge already ruled without asking outside of the presence of the jury to do so. so you don't give me that. number two, this is propensity evidence. i see no similarity between talking about, wishing you had jr. ar gun, which you don't have, so you can fire rounds at these thought be shoplifters,

and the incidents in these case that's are not, there is nothing in your case that suggests that the defendant was lying in wait to shoot at somebody, or reflecting upon the shooting for a vast amount of time. they all involve matters of seconds in time. i don't see the similarity and i don't see it now. if it's not similar, that is the whole rule. those are all of the exceptions to 90404. check the authorities. the judge, the colonel. the prior act has to bear the act of the accused or it has to be so similar as to suggest that it is a common plan or something like that. you have an incident where he is making comments about alleged

shoplifters and crimes that involve instantaneous actions. whether or not premeditated murder or self defense, that is for the jury to decide. but i don't see the similarity. it is not coming in. no matter what you think. number two, i have to be concerned that with what mr. freeman say, i said you were other the line, close to, or over the line on commenting on the defendant's pretrial silence, which is a well known rule, i, i'm astonished. that that would have been an issue. so i don't want to have another issue as long as this case continues, is that clear? >> it is.

>> thank you. the judge has just really royally chewed out the prosecutor for going into areas in his cross-examination that he said he already ruled on not being admissible. that under the law should not be raised because they were not relevant to this issue of whether or not it was premeditated murder or self defense which is the issue of the case. paul, you're a former prosecutor. as the jury is coming back in, yearly the prosecutor lost this argument big time with the judge. >> he lost this argument, but he was excoriated. in that was painful, in the middle of your trial, in the middle of the most important cross-examination. one of the things that stood out to me was two things. one is that the evidence is not

coming in. the motions that qualify and limit how the advocates can argue the case. and here is the most important thing, the second thing that he said is that the statements, the comments, the questioning went over the mine and that mean that's is a valid basis for the defense. >> they're back in, but i just want to point out that sitting next to me, danny sivalis is nodding along. >> you indicated that you worked at the rec plex the night before, correct? >> correct. >> until about 7:00 p.m.? >> i don't know the exact time, but its between 6:00 and 7:00, i don't recall. it's been awhile. >> and you drove your car to dominic's house? >> yes. >> the rest of the time it seems

like you're being driven around in mr. black's car, is that fair to say? >> yeah. >> why did you use his instead of yours, do you know? >> i would drive just to get to work, and sometimes to go to dominic's dad's house. >> so even though you didn't have a driver's license you drove from your home in antioch to the rec plex that day? >> yes. >> and after work you drove without a driver's license to dominic black's house. >> son on the week prior to that that was also without a driver's license? >> objection. >> i will mef on. >> you drove to mr. black's house. >> yes. >> you left your car there? >> yes. >> you spent the night at his house? >> yes. >> and you woke up and came down

to ruthford? >> spent the night at his house, had dinner, woke up in the morning, had breakfast, we were going through -- i was on social media and we saw all of the damage. we decided to go downtown. >> and you came down in dominic's car? >> correct. >> and you said that there was a time when you were cleaning graffiti? >> yes. >> and at some point you said you went to one of the car sources and encountered the owners, sam, or sal, or whoever they are? >> yes. >> which of the car source locations was that? >> it was the car source right here. >> and that is the one on the northeast corner of 59th and cherry? >> yes. >> and it was totally burned out on one of the previous nights? >> yes, everything was

destroyed. the others still had cars there. >> before that, had you ever worked there before? >> i had not. >> had you bought a car there birdie? >> i had not. >> had you heard of car source before? >> through dominic? >> no. i would drive past it on a daily basis. i was in kenosha on a nearly daily basis. >> so you saw the business along with churches, and the ultimate gas station, courthouse, and everything else in that area? >> yes. >> and you talked to these owners yourself? >> me and dominic did. >> and did they ask you to come protect the property? >> they didn't ask me directly. they asked nick smith. >> was nick smith around at that moment? >> he wasn't there when me and dominic were talking to them. >> did you ever personally witness any of the car source folks, sal, or sam, or any of

the folks that were running that business, did you ever personally witness them ask nick smith to guard any of their properties? >> no. >> did you ever witness any of them ask anyone to guard any of their properties? >> not that i can recall. >> what time, if you recall, did you find out that they asked nick smith? >> i believe i said in my direct examination between 3:15 or 3:30. >> that was shortly after you sent a text to sam, correct? >> correct. >> and you texted him and asked him if you could protect his business that night? correct? >> i did. >> and in that text you said i'm more than willing and will be armed, correct? >> yes. >> you mentioned you would be armed with your ar-15? >> yes.

>> and you said that me and my brother would both be there, armed, correct? >> by your brother you meant dominic, correct? >> correct. >> he is only not legally your brother, correct? >> no. >> you said you just need address. why did you need the address of a location you had already been to. >> i just wanted to pinpoint it on google maps. all of the roads were closed down in kenosha and i just wanted another best route to drive there with dominic. >> but you just told us you drove there every day up and down sheridan, why did you need gps. >> but you still knew were you were going. >> sort of, but with like the back roads. >> okay, so let's talk about the roads being closed, what do you mean by that? >> the road was closed off, and

i'm trying to remember, i don't think -- there was a lot of roads closed off. i could not tell you exactly their names right now. >> is that because there was construction going on? >> no, because of the riots. >> they were closed off to keep people out of the area, right? >> yes. >> and you knew there was a curfew that night, right? >> i believe i got an emergency alert text at around 8:00 p.m. >> just like everybody else saying stay off of the streets? >> objection, no curfew. >> still relevant to his decision making. >> just like everybody else, you got a message saying get off of the streets at 8:00 that night, right? >> yes. >> despite that message you came down, correct? >> i was already in kenosha, downtown when i got that message. >> when you got the message, you

decided not to leave and go home like you were supposed to. >> i stayed at the car source. >> and you knew there was a curfew in place that meant you should not be there anywhere, correct? >> i would say is there was hundreds in not thousands of other people there that night that got the same message. >> if they're all breaking the law you can too? >> i was, i don't think the curfew was really being enforced. >> so if a law is not being enforced you can disregard it? >> argumentative. >> you said there was a time in which nick smith asked you guys to drive him down to chicago? >> correct. >> to buy a piece of body armor? >> correct. >> down by o'hare? >> correct. >> and you were willing to do that?

at first? >> dominic was willing to do it. it was more of dominic's thing because nick smith was going to throw in like $20 to dominic when he bought it for like gas. >> so nick smith was going to pay $20 for the gas to drive down to o 'hare for nick smith to buy body armor. >> the idea is that it would be bought that night? >> i believe so. >> that's why there was some urgency to buy it right away, right? it was part of the plan for downtown that night, right? >> he want today go to o'hare. >> he wanted to go buy it that night. can you rephrase it? >> he needed it for that night?

>> i would not say he needed it, but he wanted it. >> instead of making the drive, you gave your own body armor to nicholas smith? >> correct. >> you had it along with you? >> yes. >> you brought it along in case you needed it that night as well. >> yes. >> i had it in the back of your trunk regularly? >> it is just back there i don't normally take it out. >> you said you went to a hunting goods and fishing store on highway 31 to buy a couple slings, is that right? >> correct. >> one sling for you and one for dominic, right? >> yes. >> and you bought two identity slings, correct? >> yes, the cheapest ones they had. >> and that is a single point sling meaning it attaches to the

gun in one location, correct? >> yes. >> and then wraps around your body, correct? >> yes. >> and it is designed to help you maintain possession of the weapon? >> you probably know more, i just got it to hold the rifle so if i'm doing medical aide i don't have to set it on the ground and worry about it being stolen. >> because you could not have that gun on you while doing medical said. >> i knew without a sling i could not have it on me. >> but even when you had the sling there was a time when you took off your entire gun apparatus and hand it'd to joann feedler because it was in the way. >> yes, it was hitting the ground, the rifle was hitting the ground. when i bought it, that was the purpose of it, i don't think it

really worked. >> this big long ar 15 really got in the way when you tried to help someone, right? >> sometimes. >> if you had a handgun, for example, you could have been, it would have been physically more easy for you to try to treat someone, fair? >> if i could have legally carried a handgun i would have carried it instead of a rifle. >> you grabbed some medical supplies from dominic black's house before you came downtown that night, correct? >> i grabbed extra gauze, but that is about it. >> you testified earlier that your ar-15 was loaded with 30

rounds of ammunition is that right? >> that was from the last trip up north to maine. >> when the gun was left at dominic black's out, the ammunition the ammunition was i a magazine, i don't know. >> when you were at his house on august 25th, you found your, that ar-15 downstairs in his basement, correct. >> no. >> where did you find it at? >> it was downstairs in the basement but i was told by dominic black to go downstairs and grab your rifle. >> you knew that was being stored in a gun safe in the garage, correct? >> correct. >> you didn't have the code or any access to that gun safe, correct? >> i did not. >> it just happened then on this particular day dominic black's

stepfather had moved that gun into the house, correct? >> yes. >> you didn't know that beforehand? >> i didn't. >> you didn't know that it had been taken out of the safe? >> no. >> so you went downstairs to grab it? >> after instructions by dominic i did. after i was instructed to do so by dominic, i did go downstairs and grab it. >> and it had the magazine already inserted in the rifle? >> it did. >> and the magazine was already loaded with 30 rounds? >> i believe so. >> when did you chamber a round? >> i don't know if i ever did. >> well you had to have to fire the gun. >> i think it was already chambered when i got it. that's what i remember. i don't remember racking it at all that night. >> because the way this type of gun works is that you have to have a magazine with ammo in it. you have to insert the magazine into the gun and then you have

to rack it to load one of those rounds into the chamber, correct? >> yes. >> and you were familiar with how to do all that? >> yes. >> it can't discharge a bullet unless a bullet is racked into the chamber, correct? >> correct. >> and so your testimony here as best you can recall is that you never had to do the initial racking because the bullet was already in the chamber when you took possession of it that day, is that fair to say? >> i believe that it was already racked. >> and the ammunition was in there -- >> 223 metal jacket. >> 223 being the caliber and metal jacket being the type of casing. >> full metal jacket is the bullet type. >> i apologize. you are aware different types of bullets like hollow type bullets, correct? >> yes. >> and when you were purchasing

this gun, let me back up for a second. you said that the 30 rounds of ammo were leftover from previous. i assume you mean when you were up in lady smith and you were practicing with the gun up there. >> yes. >> and dominic black's family has a shooting range up there, is that right? >> they have a gravel pit where it's safe to shoot. >> and you and dominic would practice with your ar-15s shooting in that gravel pit, correct? >> correct. >> you would shoot at targets as far as what, 75 yards away? >> no. >> how close were the targets? >> i was about, i was about -- i think the furthest i ever got was from me to the tv. >> you didn't shoot at targets further away than that.

>> no. >> dominic black said he shot at targets 75 feet away. >> i wasn't with him when he did that. >> you are aware of the fact that the ar-15 was capable of hitting targets much further away than you to the tv, correct? >> i believe so. >> did you know the capabilities of your own weapon? >> i knew that it could shoot and i believe from a distance. i don't know how far. i'm not an expert on ar-15s. >> did you personally purchase that 223 full metal jacket ammunition? >> i did not. >> who did? >> dominic did. >> did you ask him to purchase it? >> i did not. >> so you didn't know what type of ammo was in that gun, is that

right? >> i knew they were 223 full metal jackets. the first time i shot it, i had to load into the magazine. >> you knew the type of round but you didn't know what those rounds were capable of doing, is that fair to say? >> believe a bullet is a bullet. >> as you sit here today, you know there are different types of bullets, right? >> yes. >> you know hollow type bullets do different things to an animal or a human than full metal jacket bullets, correct? >> yeah. full metal jacket is a, like a defense, like another type of defense round. i know people use full metal jacket for hunting and hollow point is something that causes more damage. >> hollow point bullets are designed to hit the animal they are being shot at, let's say a

deer, for example. and explode inside that body, correct? >> no, i don't think so. >> when you say explode, are you saying expand or explode? there are such things as exploding bullets. >> let me rephrase. mr. rittenhouse, what is your understanding of what a hollow point bullet would do if it was shot at let's say a deer. >> i don't think people use hollow point -- >> that wasn't my question, sir. what is your understanding of what that bullet would do. let me rephrase it then. you're aware people use hollow point bullets in their pistols to defend themselves against other people, correct? >> yes. >> he was carrying a pistol with hollow point ammunition for self-defense. do you remember that testimony? >> i do. >> so what is your understanding, if you have one, as to what hollow point ammunition would do to a human? >> i believe it would do the same thing as any other bullet.

like i said, a bullet is a bullet. i believe hollow points. i'm sorry, i don't know much about ammo. i'm trying to remember what i know but i just can't remember. >> you don't know what a full metal jacket would do versus a hollow point, right? >> i believe a hollow point. i just don't know much about it. i believe a hollow point would cause more damage. >> to the first target but it wouldn't continue through to any other targets, right? >> i don't know. >> whereas a full metal jacket bullet is specifically designed to continue through its first target and keep flying, correct? >> you know, first of all, the hollow point is not guaranteed

to stay in the first object struck. so what you said is not correct. >> no testimony of that, your honor. >> you have been testifying. we're going to take a break for lunch. please don't talk about the case. read, watch and listen only when it comes to the trial and let's see you at 12:45. >> and judge schroeder -- >> let's say 1:00. i apologize for taking time away from you. >> and with that, judge schroeder has taken a break for about an hour, a lunch break for this jury but with another blast in their presence at the prosecutor saying he was beginning to testify himself. believe gabe gutierrez is with us outside the courtroom. this has not gone well for the prosecution. >> yeah, that's exactly right, andrea. i have watched a lot of trials and i have never seen, i can't

remember a judge ever admonishing a prosecutor quite like that and raising his voice, yes, out of the presence of the jury and admonishing all his line of questioning. andrea, a lot to unpack over this kyle rittenhouse's testimony that we've heard over the past several hours now. this is the critical moment of this trial, what we have been waiting to see. for those viewers who have just joined us recently, kyle rittenhouse broke down in tears as he was describing his interaction with joseph rosenbaum. the first person he shot and killed. the judge then had to break for us a recess. i can tell you, andrea, we are getting insights from one of the pool reporters inside that courtroom about that moment. the pool reporter saying that as the jurors walked out of the courtroom that they looked up in apparent sympathy at kyle rittenhouse who had just broken down on the witness stand. rittenhouse's mother is also in the courtroom and being

comforted as she sobbed loudly as the jurors were being led out of the courtroom. right now we're in break, but the judge admonishing the prosecution over his line of questioning. the defense earlier saying that if he did it again, if he went somewhere he shouldn't that he would ask for a mistrial. that's where we're at right now, andrea. >> certainly, we'll watch for any defense motion in this trial. this has been an extraordinary several hours. in fact, now they take the break for lunch and we hand it over to chuck todd in washington. chuck. >> welcome to "meet the press daily." i'm chuck todd. to say what we've seen over the last few hours is riveting is an understatement. for a week of testimony, kyle rittenhouse has taken the stand in his own defense becoming emotional at times while testifying about the night last