time now, of what has been a highly emotional and at times incredibly contentious afternoon at the kyle rittenhouse trial. rittenhouse took the stand to defend himself against homicide charges. he's accused of shooting and killing two men and injuring another during racial protests in kenosha. rittenhouse remained composed under questioning from his lawyer until he started talking about the moments just before the shooting. >> i look over my shoulder and mr. rosenbaum, mr. rosenbaum was now running from my right side, umm, and i was cornered from in front of me with mr. zaminsky. and there were -- there were

three people right there. >> we've got a lot to talk about as we wait for the lunch break to end. joining me, nbc news correspondent gabe gutierrez who has been in kenosha, civil rights attorney and former prosecutor crystal given, and msnbc contributor danny cevallos. it's uncommon for a defendant to testify, this is a self-defense case. he broke down in tears after being fairly composed. what do you think the jury's take might be? >> first, oftentimes the defense rests without introducing any evidence. that being said, in this particular case, because it's self-defense, this is one of those cases where it might be a time to have your client called to the stand, because he may be the only one that can articulate

what he feared at the moment that he fired those shots. so it's a really tough decision. and i guarantee you that the defense team really wasn't 100% sure until today, until the day they decided to call him. it's always a last-minute decision. but that doesn't mean that you don't prepare your client. and kyle rittenhouse is prepared. he's doing all the things that a witness is supposed to do. he's calling the people he shot mister so and on, showing them some respect. he's not getting derailed by the prosecutor's questions. when the prosecutor asks him, you shot them intending to kill them, his response is, no, i shot to stop the threat. that's textbook. self-defense experts will tell you that that is why you shoot, to stop the threat. he's been well-coached and is pretty composed on the stand other than breaking down in that emotional first part. >> which you can argue, at the

moment he's confronted with having to shoot three other human beings. if there was a time when he was going to break down, that's the time the jury would expect it from him. let me go to you, gabe, because you've been there. what are you hearing about the mood in the courtroom, as all this unfolded? >> hi there, chris. yes, we are hearing what went on from inside the courtroom from one of the pool reporters that was there. when kyle rittenhouse broke down, as you mentioned, the judge called the short break. as the jury was being led out of the courtroom, according to this pool report, some of them did look sympathetically, in apparent sympathy, to kyle rittenhouse. also rittenhouse's mother in the courtroom, she was sobbing within earshot of the jurors and someone next to her was putting their arm around his mother to console her. but chris, what struck me is something that danny just mentioned. kyle rittenhouse certainly seems very prepared for this testimony. even when he was asked why he

was planning to turn himself in, that's what the defense asked him, why didn't he turn himself in immediately, he says that he did approach a police officer, that he couldn't turn himself in to the police station because it was barricaded, that's why he went home to antioch, illinois. but during that section, he said, quote, i didn't do anything wrong, i defended myself. as danny mentioned, he has consistently said that he did not intend to kill the people he shot, that he did so to stop the threat. another point, and you may get this with one of your other guests, chris, i can't recall a case i've seen where a judge has raised his voice, essentially yelling at the prosecution over a line of questioning. the most intense part of that happening away from the view of the jury, but certainly a lot of drama here in this courthouse behind me, as we get ready for rittenhouse to continue his testimony, chris. >> i'm with you on that one, gabe, i've covered any number of

trials including murder trials. i've never seen a judge like that before. let me play a little bit of what gabe was just talking about. >> first of all, your honor, this was the subject of a motion. 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. i indicated a bias towards denial, is what i did. held it open with a bias toward denial. why would you think that that made it okay for you, without any advance 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 defendant's post-arrest silence. that's basic law. it's been basic law in this country for 40 years, 50 years. >> wow, kristen, that's when the

jury wasn't there, but later, when the jury was there, he again chastised the prosecutor. what do you make of what we saw? >> look, any trial attorney will tell you, getting yelled at by the court is par for the course. but this type of admonishment was i think necessary. look, every prosecutor knows you do not get into pretrial silence. you do not even try to go there. i understand what the prosecutor was trying to do. he was basically trying to say, hey, you had all of this time to devise this very coached and coherent story for this jury, didn't you? but you really should never have gone there. and then the second thing was, and this is what you were talking about, getting yelled at in front of the jury. every trial attorney knows, before you try to readdress any evidentiary issue that has already been discussed and ruled upon by the court, whether with prejudice, without presently, or open for reconsideration, you sidebar the court.

that prosecutor, before he entered that line of questioning, should have asked for a sidebar. quite frankly, i understand the argument that the prosecutor was making. he was saying i'm not trying to enter it for propensity purposes, i'm trying to impeach the very last statement that he said. again, he should have taken it to the side. and the court may have been a little bit more open to allowing that testimony in. but not now. >> so i think if you're the prosecutor or you're supporting the prosecutor, danny, you're looking at this and saying, if nothing else, are they setting themselves up potentially for a mistrial? what do you read into what you saw there? >> first of all, we may never know for sure, but i promise you, during the lunch break, the other prosecutors are patting him on the shoulder saying, man, it's cool, you'll be all right. because that was really difficult to watch that beatdown. >> uncomfortable for sure. >> you mentioned that you've never seen that in all the trials you've covered. that's how i know you've never covered any of my trials. >> have you been yelled at? >> absolutely. i've been yelled at like that. >> in front of the jury?

>> yes. but some of this was not in front of the jury. but yes, in front of the jury. but judges feel much more comfortable embarrassing you when the jury is out of the room. and honestly, sometimes that's worse. especially this prosecutor, this went on for a long time. i've been there, you have to stand there, you have to take it. it is agony. and i have to believe, i just felt that the judge was this close to actually considering granting a mistrial and maybe not a regular mistrial but one with prejudice. when the prosecutor commits misconduct, then a mistrial, if it's the prosecuorial misconduct reason, you may have double jeopardy and that could bar future prosecution. the prosecutor was on thin ice and we may never know how thin the ice was. >> you may certainly disagree with me, kristen, one thing that folks find, whatever else goes on in the trial, the defendant

cries, the judge yells, when those jurors go into the jury room, they take it seriously, they will look at the facts. i wonder, on the facts, what you make of what the prosecution did today. for example, he really pushed kyle rittenhouse on whether he was a certified emt, what he was doing there, he pushed him on whether he was supposed to have that gun legally. what do you think of the legal points he may or may not have made? >> honestly, look, who you're talking about a double homicide trial and an attempted homicide trial, we have three victims. and you have a 17-year-old kid, right? sometimes legal technicalities get thrown out the window. what i think the jury wants to see is that kyle rittenhouse is a cold-blooded killer. because in order to convict this young, 17-year-old boy, they want to know that he walked in there with that shotgun ready to shoot up everybody, right?

and yes, the prosecution's cross-examination is going to be still continuing. after the lunch hour, it will continue. what we've seen so far, not only from the prosecutor's case in chief, as well as from the direct examination from the defense attorney of kyle rittenhouse, and the cross-examination, that's just not the picture that we're seeing. in fact the picture that we're seeing is that kyle rittenhouse, whether we like it or not, he says he's a shooter, he brought a gun to a place, he was painted as a concerned citizen. that's going to be tough for the prosecutor who -- >> i'm sorry, kristen, the judge is back, let's go back into the courtroom. >> an exception to this rule exists where a defendant's motion is necessitated by prosecutorial impropriety designed to avoid an acquittal. now, what has happened in

this -- this morning was two times, the state had commented on mr. rittenhouse's right to remain silent. the first time he was admonished by the court. the second time, the court had the jury leave and re-admonished him on that. prior to mr. rittenhouse testifying, this court addressed various things with not only mr. rittenhouse but with the lawyers. you had cited various statutes, and you had asked if anything would be coming up, for example 90608, one of the other things you addressed was 90404. and you had said that based on the information that had come out at the trial, nothing had changed as it relates to your ruling. shortly thereafter, mr. binger stated, and we looked it up, previously he said to mr. rittenhouse, previously

indicated that you wished to have your ar-15 to protect someone's property. clearly in violation not only of the prior ruling that you had made but the ruling that very day, that very morning. it appears to me that there are two, really, elements the court miscellaneous consider when making a determination of mistrial for what amounts to prosecutorial overreach. the first is, it must be in the nature of awareness that his activity would be prejudicial to the defendant. i would argue to you that he's clearly aware of that. you had warned him. you had told him prior to mr. rittenhouse that certainly the 90404 was offlimits. you had warned him on the infringement on his constitutional right to remain

silent. he did it again. the second one requires some action by the court in terms of a finding, i think. the second one says the prosecutor's actions was designed to allow another chance to convict, that is, to provoke a mistrial in order to get another kick at the cat because the first trial is going badly or to prejudice the defendant's rights to successfully complete the criminal confrontation at the first trial. now, the case that i had cited as a kenosha case, state versus coping. >> coppening. >> yes. >> c-o-p-p-e-n-i-n-g. >> yes, sir. in that case, the court didn't make findings regarding the prosecutor's actions. so i don't know that it's my role to sit here and say who's winning. i don't think that's necessarily what i'm supposed to do.

but i think the court has to make some findings as it relates to the bad faith on the part of the prosecution. and if the court makes a finding that the actions that i had talked about were ton in bad faith, then i think both elements for mistrial with prejudice have been met and i think under the circumstances, based on what i put forget on the record, i would certainly ask the court to consider those and i would ask the court grant the motion with prejudice. thank you. >> thank you. state? >> your honor, i would like an opportunity to more fully respond to this with a little bit of research. at first blush, though, and i reserve the right to present case law and additional cites to

the court, but i do want to point out for the record that the defendant has presented interviews to at least one media source and at least one online source since his arrest. and there have been questions about that night. there have been questions about what he did, things like that. he has decided, probably on advice of counsel in certain circumstances, not to give a statement in the media about what happened. but he's talking about his family life, he's talking about his friends, he's talking about the circumstances of the case, he's talking about how this has affected him and things like that. so my point in asking those questions was, you have agreed to talk to media, you've agreed to talk about yourself, you've agreed to give interviews, but until now, this is the first time you're explaining your

actions. and so i wasn't referring to his in-custody statements. in fact i never asked either detective about what the defendant told them. he actually starts to tell them some things and then he says he wants a lawyer and they stop him. they mirandize him first, by the way, and he says, i want to talk to my lawyer, and they're like, okay, we're done. so i'm not referring to that. i didn't ask the detectives any questions about that. but since this, the defendant has spoken to the media. he has talked about his life, about circumstances related to this case. he just hasn't given his exact version of events that night. so his voluntary discussion to speak to the media has nothing to do with the fifth amendment. that is his own decision. and if he's going to pick and choose what he wants to talk about in those voluntary interviews with the media, then i think that's fair game. it doesn't implicate his miranda rights. it doesn't implicate the fifth

amendment. he's making his own voluntary choice. >> well, wait a minute. you don't think i can give an interview about his awards he won in high school or his demerits he got, and about his sports activities and his swimming and that? and decline to answer any questions about the incident in question, and that's somehow a waiver of his right to silence? >> i think doing more than that, your honor, in these interviews. >> i don't know. i knew nothing about them. i never -- you know, i haven't seen all of -- i haven't seen probably 1% of all the evidence, which is pretty typical, as you know. so i have no way of knowing it. you have some interviews that he gave to media or to whatever? >> yes, there's an interview i'm looking at our computer right now from "the washington post" where he talks to them. there's one, it's either "new

yorker" or "gq" magazine where he speaks to reporters also. he doesn't go into specific details about what happened that night, but it's not like he's talking to school or things like that. >> he doesn't go into specific details, certainly there could be a waiver, but a very modest discussion about the activities that night. if you're suggesting that occurred, that could make a big difference. but even a small discussion on his part of the night in question might be a full waiver, i don't know. and i won't know until i see it. why don't you make copies of it. >> may we have a few minutes to -- >> well, we won't do it right now. i do agree with you that this is not something i would do sitting here, without giving you an opportunity to respond. although i would be interested in your preliminary response to

the excluded evidence that you touched on after having been told not -- or having been told that i was confirming my prior rulings. >> i do want to point out, we have it on the screen, a "washington post" article, the defendant says he did not regret having his gun because, quote, i would have died that night if i didn't, end quote. that's a direct quote from the defendant to the media about that night. >> what about that? >> your honor, all i can say about that interview is there were prior counsel representing him. >> i don't care about that. >> and i believe it was a telephone interview. i don't know anything about the circumstances of that. i would have to read the article. >> that might make a difference. and what about the -- your

asking questions about excluded evidence? >> your honor, we went over this earlier, and i don't want to repeat myself because i know you've heard me. but if i could just summarize. i did hear you talk about that evidence this morning before testimony. the defendant then took the stand. he admitted that he had said to the person that he had pointed the gun at that person. i have seen that video. it was actually introduced by the defense. i think it was even in their opening statement. and there is this person who confronts the defendant and accuses him of this. frankly, to be honest, your honor, when i watched the video the first time, i didn't hear the defense reaction. i thought it was someone making an accusation and the defendant walking away as if trying to avoid confrontation. i was surprised to hear the

defendant admit in his testimony on direct, by his attorney, that yes, i did tell that person that i had pointed the gun at them. he explained that he was joking when he said that. the jury can evaluate that. it goes to his credibility. it goes to whether or not he's telling the truth. it goes to his decision-making. again, this is an incident that occurred that night, so it's not something that happened separate in time. it presumably happened a few minutes before. but like i said, i was taken aback by the defendant admitting that he had said to this person, yes, i pointed a gun at you. and i think it's fair to say that watching that video, that that person believed strongly that this happened, the defendant is telling him it happened, now the defendant today is giving us a different version and saying, oh, i was joking, i was just kidding that guy or whatever.

i would like to probe that. i would like to probe what he said to that person. i would like to probe what his motivations were. i would like to probe whether in fact he really did do that. and i think that that changes the equation with regard to the cbs video that was the subject of the other motion, because in my mind it is very similar. and i know we've disagreed on that and i'm not going to belabor the point, your honor. but that was where i was coming from, was there's been a change in the testimony of the defendant today that i think makes that evidence -- it's admissible and much more relevant than it already was, and i thought it was already relevant. the court has -- i do want to be clear -- >> i'm just here on the sidelines? i had made a ruling that that evidence wasn't coming in and you decided that it was. >> if i could respond briefly, your honor, i was about to say,

i did not interpret your ruling as an absolute -- we've had three state motions. there was one in which we which had the court to introduce evidence that the defendant was at pudgy's bar with proud boys and you were clear that that wasn't coming in. >> don't get into other subjects. you're an experienced trial attorney. you put it on yourself to bring it in because you figured out a way around it? come on. >> your ruling on our three motions, there were gradations there. there were things that were absolutely out and you left the door open on other things. i didn't interpret your ruling as this is absolutely never coming in. and i have practiced before you, your honor. i have filed other motions before you.

your practice oftentimes is to reserve ruling on those until you see the evidence. and i think you even said something to that effect. >> i undoubtedly did. >> so i thought, this is my good faith explanation to you, and if you want to yell at me, you can. my good faith dealing this morning, after watching that testimony, was you had left the door open a little bit, now we had something new, and i was going to probe it. >> i don't believe you. there better not be another incident. i'll take the motion under advisement. and you can respond. when you say that you were acting on good faith, i don't believe that, okay? let's proceed. everybody in good faith. all right. would you come up please, mr. rittenhouse. >> i do have -- >> yes. >> your honor. >> yeah? >> i do have another item to raise, before the jury comes in,

raise it with you. there was another motion with regard to the defendant being at pudgy's bar after a court appearance in january in which he poses for selfies wearing a shirt that says "free as fuck." i would like to ask the defendant if he posed for selfies after a court appearance with members of the public wearing that shirt. i do not intend to talk about who those people were, what groups they were affiliated with or anything along those lines. but i believe that it is relevant when the defendant goes to a bar after a court appearance and poses for selfies wearing a shirt like that, i think it is relevant to some of the issues that have come up in this case, for example, is remorse or lack of remorse, is utter disregard for human life, those are things that i think it comes into play, because i think that behavior is not consistent with someone who has a regard for human life. the jury has already watched him break down on the stand with

emotion. i would like to probe how heartfelt these emotions are when you go to a bar and pose for selfies with people wearing a "free as fuck" picture. i'm not going to talk about the people, the photograph has their faces blocked out. we won't see any of the people in the crowd. we'll just see the defendant standing for a selfie with that shirt on. that's as far as i want to go. >> nobody got an opportunity -- first of all, you've made a ruling on it and it was clear prior to him testifying. so part of this is, would we have raised it, would we have brought it up if we would have known that it was going to be coming in? we have done -- there's been nothing to open this door, judge, nothing that has been said to open the door about what happened four months after this.

it's relevant in any way to what happened that evening. that's what the court had ruled. you said, four months after, i don't see how that goes to any 90404 type of admissible evidence. so my argument is, a, you ruled on it previous to him testifying. you confirmed your ruling, which you had made previously, which mr. binger just said you had shut the door on it. so apparently he doesn't believe a door that is shut should stay shut. however, now he's asking that something be admitted that, to be fair, this should have been brought up sooner. this jury, i would have -- i would have voir dire'd on an issue of whether or not they heard it, saw it, were aware of it, how they felt about it, whether it had an impact on their ability to be fair in the case. we never went there because of

your prior ruling. so there's nothing that's opened this door and i don't think it's relevant, something that happened four months -- he talked about indifference to human life. that's that night, not four months later. there's nothing, nothing that's relevant about that. you've already made your ruling. i ask that you stick with it. >> i'm struggling with why it would be relevant to any of the issues in this case. you know, if he were on trial for using exquisitely bad judgment, if he were on trial for behaving in a very offensive way, then i could see the purpose. but an incident that occurred four months after the incidents in question, i don't see how the jury can work with that in reaching any conclusions about the issues in this case. >> first of all, your honor, we

have introduced evidence that the defendant had a slogan on his tiktok page, "i'm just trying to be famous." this case has made him famous. and he's posing for selfies as a result. one of our theories of this case is that his behavior that night was intended to gain attention, to be famous. and he's reaped the benefits of that. second of all, he is on trial, in my opinion, for exquisitely poor decisionmaking, taking a gun that he's not legally entitled to have, coming down in violation of curfew, running around the community with that gun, trying to be a police officer when he's not, confronting protesters that he knows are hostile, and all those behaviors i think are exquisitely bad judgment. so the jury can make that decision. the jury can give what weight they want to this evidence. but it's moments after he has a court appearance here. he's out on bond in this case,

when he decides to do this behavior. and nobody made him do it. nobody forced him to go to the bar, nobody forced him to wear the shirt, nobody forced him to pose for selfies. it's his own decisionmaking. >> when he made reference to ex exquisitely poor judgment, i was talking about the incident where he was wearing the shirt. look, everybody in all of humanity at one time or another displays bad judgment. sometimes exquisitely bad judgment. and we don't let it into people's trials, unrelated matters. so i wasn't referring to his having good or bad judgment on the day in question. that's a legitimate inquiry and you're being allowed to present a lot of evidence on that subject. and the jury is going to be instructed in some of the element of some of the crimes that are charged here, is going to deal with the caliber of his

judgment. but you're talking about an incident that occurred four months later. so i'm not seeing it. and i don't want to waste any more time with it. i don't think -- i've ruled before it's not admissible. and i have heard nothing to change my mind about that. >> it was sought to be admitted earlier for a different purpose, your honor. >> i'm sorry? >> it was sought to be admitted earlier for a different purpose than it was today. i am seeking to introduce it for a different purpose today. >> and the request is denied. okay? are we ready to go? >> more drama at the kyle rittenhouse trial, we apologize for some of the language some people might find offensive. this is live. danny cevallos, look, you've got the prosecutor arguing, i asked these questions in good faith, the judge says i don't believe you.

but from a legal standpoint, not the drama in from a legal standpoint, what just happened? >> let me try and summarize it. the prosecutor''s argument was, yeah, but i wasn't sure if you super duper precluded it or just regular precluded it. >> is that a legal term? >> yes, it's a latin term. he argued with the judge and said, i know you weren't going to allow this evidence but i thought there was a crack in the window or a crack in the door and i could get it in because i thought they opened the door. he flat out said, i don't believe you, the judge wasn't buying that argument. >> kristen, what do you make what have we saw, before the jury comes back in? >> very challenging. the judge could find an intentional mistrial. as danny alluded to either, that would close the door against subsequent prosecution against kyle rittenhouse for two murders and one attempted murder. that's a serious, serious thing

for the prosecution to face. the judge said he would take it under advisement and revisit it later. it will be a tough thing for the prosecution. >> what's the bar, what will the judge look at when he's considering that, kristen? >> he will look for bad faith. did the prosecutor knowingly try to introduce this evidence. was he acting knowing that the judge had already precluded it. and i think the judge is really also very upset at the fact that the prosecutor also tried to enter into some testimony with regard to pre-arrest statements and post-arrest statements, and bordering on the line of whether the defendant waived his fifth amendment rights. >> sustain the objection to the last. so let's proceed.

>> kyle rittenhouse back on the stand. the prosecutor getting ready to continue with the cross-examination after what was lunch break and then that long back and forth between the judge and the lawyers. let's listen to the questioning. >> good afternoon, mr. rittenhouse. >> good afternoon. >> you testified earlier that there were times that evening when mr. rosenbaum had threatened you; is that right? >> yes. >> and you described him as wearing a red shirt with a blue bandanna; is that correct? >> at certain times. >> when he threatened you, that's what he was wearing? >> i believe the first time he threatened me he was wearing a red shirt with a blue bandanna. the second time, he had it wrapped around his face. >> had what wrapped around his face? >> his t-shirt. >> so he wasn't wearing a shirt the second time around? >> correct. >> and you indicated at one

point you thought he had a chain in his hand? >> i believe so. >> when he made the threat to you with a red shirt on and a blue bandanna, did he have the chain in his hand? >> i think one of the times he did. >> okay. so which of the times was it? >> i can't recall off the top of my head. i think it was the time when he was threatening to cut people's hearts out. >> i don't need to know the threat, i just need to know when it was. was it the first time or the second time? >> it was the second time. >> what was he wearing the second time? >> he was masked -- the shirt wrapped around his face. >> he didn't have a short on his torso? >> correct. >> and you could see, when he didn't have a shirt on his torso, that he didn't have any gun tucked in his waistband, correct? >> i wasn't paying attention to

that. i was behind joanne fiedler. i was somewhere over there. >> so how far away were you from mr. rosenbaum when he made the second threat? >> 10, 15 feet. i'm not really certain. >> but you were close enough to hear the words out of his mouth? >> yes. >> and you took that as a threat to you personally? >> i took the first one, where he said if i catch you alone i'm going to kill you. i took that as a threat to me personally. the second time i took that as a threat to the group. >> can we have that photo, exhibit 138, up on the screen, please. do you see mr. rosenbaum in this

picture? >> i do. >> and he's in the middle of the picture carrying a plastic bag? >> yes. >> is that the way he looked when he made the first threat to you? >> when he said if i catch you alone, yes. >> and he was carrying that plastic bag with him when he made that threat too, correct? >> correct. >> how close was he when he made that first threat? to you. >> close. i couldn't give you an exact estimate. but he was close, less than five feet. >> so closer than madam court reporter is to you now? >> i would say about the same, if not a little bit closer. >> and you were next to mr. balch when that was said? >> correct. was anyone else there besides you, mr. balch, and mr. rosenbaum? >> i believe there were other demonstrators around. >> and you've seen in this trial that there's been a lot of video

footage of that night, correct? >> yes. >> and you've seen in this trial that there's a lot of video footage of you that night, correct? >> yes. >> you would agree with me there's no video of either one of these threats, correct? >> i don't know if somebody filmed it. that i'm aware of right now. >> you're not aware of any, are you? >> i'm not. >> so mr. rosenbaum looked like that at the time of the first threat. but then looked different at the time of the second threat, is that right? >> yes. >> and did you say he was carrying the chain when he made the first threat or the second one? >> the second. >> and he was still carrying that plastic bag the second time? >> yes. >> that plastic bag has a clear side to it that allows you to see inside of it, right? >> sort of. i didn't really look into the bag. >> you didn't know what was in the bag at all? >> i didn't. >> did he swing the chain at you when he made the second threat? >> he did not. >> did he physically touch you when he made the second threat?

>> no, he didn't. >> in fact that entire evening he never once touched your body, did he? >> he grabbed my gun when he attacked me. >> and that's why i asked the question the way i did. he never touched your body that night, correct? >> he didn't touch me physically. >> and the first or the second time, did he run at you or charge at you or anything like that? >> he didn't chase me. >> he didn't do anything physically to you, did he? >> no. >> he just said some words? >> yes. >> and that chain that he had in his hand, he never did anything to physically threaten you with that chain, correct? >> yes. >> is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and other than the chain that you've described, at no point in the evening did you ever see joseph rosenbaum with any other type of weapon, correct? >> not that i saw. >> never saw him with a gun? >> correct. >> never saw him with a knife? >> correct.

>> never saw him with a bat? >> correct. >> never saw him with a club? >> correct. >> how far apart in time were these two threats that you say mr. rosenbaum made to you? >> i want to say -- i can't give you a definite time. i wasn't looking at my clock. but i would say within the same hour. >> and both of those threats occurred while you were on the 59th street property? >> the -- the second threat happened at the corner, and the first threat happened towards central high school. >> can you use that laser pointer and point out on that map where the first threat occurred? >> the first threat happened

right here in front of the building. >> so you're pointing at a location that is by the 59th street car source on the south side of that property along the building and sheridan road, on the west side of the road, would that be accurate? >> yes. >> and you said there was a second threat within an hour after that, correct? >> yes. >> where was that threat at? >> it was somewhere over here, i remember. like on the other side of the property, towards ruther central. >> more towards the northeast corner of that same property? >> correct. >> but you were still on the car source property when that second threat was allegedly made, correct? >> yes. >> did you remember what mr. rosenbaum had said to you later on, when he's confronting you at the 63rd street car source?

>> i took a mental picture of his face when he said those threats, i recognized it was him that said that when he started chasing me. >> so when you are running away from him at the 63rd street car source, you're thinking to yourself, this is the guy who had made a threat to me earlier; is that fair to say? >> i was thinking this is the guy that said if he catches me alone, he'll kill me, as i'm running away from him. >> the reason i ask, mr. rittenhouse, is how did you know it was the same guy, when he's changed the way he looks? >> his appearance, the shorts, his height. >> but in both of those instances that you've described, he's got something covering his face, either the blue bandanna in one instance or the red shirt in a different instance, correct? >> he was wearing the red shirt when he chased me, around his head. >> so you remember that from the second time that you say he

threatened you? >> yes. >> and you thought to yourself, this is the same guy? >> yes. >> so when you -- eventually we're getting to the point where you're going down to the 63rd street car source, right before the shooting, you recognized him as you're following him down the street? >> i didn't follow mr. rosenbaum down the street. >> he was in front of you. >> i know that now. >> you didn't see him ahead of you as you walked that night? >> no. it was dark out. >> but you, as soon as you get to the 63rd street car source, mr. rosenbaum is running ahead of you, isn't he? >> i don't believe so. >> but you decided you needed to run because of the fire at the

duramax? >> yes. >> why? >> because it was urgent. >> there's fires all over the place. >> i wanted to put it out. >> you indicated while you were at the 59th street car source, you said you put out a fire at the church next door, is that right? >> yes. >> did you hear joanne fiedler's testimony yesterday that when you guys went over there, somebody had put some sort of flammable liquid on the door? did you hear that testimony? >> i did, i believe that was referring to the ruther central high school. >> okay. so when she described it as happening at the church, you think she was getting it confused? >> yes. >> okay. so whatever happened with this flammable liquid on the door, the point is, some other group, some other people put that out before you even got there. >> correct. >> why did you feel that you

should go around, off the 59th street car source property, and put out fires? >> to make sure my community didn't get burnt down, and help. >> when you say your community, you mean kenosha? >> yes. >> again, you're from antioch. you're not living in kenosha at this time when this all happens, right? >> my dad lives in kenosha. >> lots of people live in kenosha, but you didn't, right? >> my residence was in antioch. >> but you felt like you wanted to do things to protect this community, fair? >> the community that i was part of, yes. >> and you felt like it was appropriate for you to take matters into your own hands to put out fires, for example? >> to put out fires by using a fire extinguisher, yes. >> even though they weren't on

the 59th street property, correct? >> correct. >> and were there other things that you decided it would be appropriate for you to go out there and take off of off the 59th street property that night? >> i was walking around and asking people if they needed medical help. >> so you felt that you wanted to go out and help people, help protect people, help people feel better, treat people, things like that, even off the 59th street property? >> provide first aid. >> normally, in our regular society, that's something that we call 911 for, right? >> normally, yes. >> your honor, i'm going to object to this. >> where are we headed? >> i think that the defendant's decisions to go off that property and involve himself in other matters are relevant, your honor. >> i'll let you pursue it,

but -- >> and that's exactly how these shootings happened. so -- >> that's what the trial is about. >> which is why -- >> go ahead. go ahead. >> normally, if there's a fire, if there's somebody committing a crime, you call 911, right? >> normally, yes. >> you couldn't feel like you could do that that night, correct? >> i don't think that -- i saw from the nights prior that, umm, the fire department wasn't responding to put out fires. >> well, the nights before, there were businesses on fire along 22nd avenue, there's the car source, large-scale property fires on the prior nights, correct? >> yes. >> on the night of august 25, we didn't have any fires like that, we just had a couple of dumpsters, smaller things, right? >> that i saw, yes.

>> i didn't hear you, sir. >> "that i saw, yes." >> but regardless of how big the fire is, you felt that night that calling 911 was not an option, correct? . >> i didn't feel if i called 911 that anyone would show up. >> which is why you decided to take care of it yourself, correct? >> correct, to provide first aid and put out fires. >> to do things that we would normally expect police or the fire department to do, correct? >> to help -- to help people, yes. >> could you please move that microphone a little closer so we can make sure we hear what you're saying. you can adjust it, if you need to move it closer. thank you. >> i'm going to interrupt for

just a moment. how's the temperature, how many are comfortable the way things are? okay. i won't even ask the side. i see you ice cubes, there's nothing to worry about. it must be blowing differently here. go ahead, mr. binger. >> you came to kenosha that night armed with an ar-15 and no other ways to physically defend yourself. correct? >> i had an ar-15, yes. >> other than that, you had no other weapons or devices that you could use to defend yourself that night, correct? >> yes. >> and there's an interview in which you say you're not carrying anything nonlethal. do you recall that? >> i do. >> you indicated in response to one of your attorneys' questions

that no friction with the protesters that night. did i understand you correctly? >> by friction you mean -- >> i'm using your words, sir. i heard you say in response to your attorney's question that there was no friction with the protesters that it night. did i hear you correctly? >> yes. you're describing what you observed when you were at the 59th street? >> yes. >> so based on your several hours at that moment location, it seemed to you as though the crowd of however you want to describe them, they have been called rye the yachters, protesters, demonstrators, and you, things were fine? no friction? >> for the most part, other than mr. rosen balm. >> he was the only one? >> that threatened. >> that you saw? >> yes. >> can we please play exhibit

number 18 at the 122 minute and 14 second mark.

>> can you please play from this point? >> militia are up there. >> i have a fire. >> where? dumpster fire. it's just like the year, man. >> yeah, right. 2020 is just a stem. >> i could use a dooby right now. >> how's it going? >> hey, hey, hey.

>> don't cause problems when there's none here. >> that's true. just stay on your property. >> protect your property. >> there's way too many of them. >> i have to agree with her. >> protect your property, not the streets. >> i have to agree with her. you shouldn't be on the street. they are just protecting their property. >> i thought they were yelling at them. >> one of the guys is losing his patience. he should go inside. switch him out. he's got a lot of rage. he says the wrong thing.

protect your property. just keep it there. >> he's trying to protect the property. >> do you think that looks like friction? >> a little bit. >> you witness that, didn't you? >> i didn't witness what mr. colt let did.

i didn't see that. >> but you saw the reaction from the crowd, right? >> yeah, a little bit. i wasn't really paying much attention to that. >> would you agree with me that it seems that the crowd was reacting to members of group going out in the street and trying to interfere with what was going on off your property? >> i don't think they were happy about it. >> in fact, the person who made this video specifically told you to stay on your property and not go out on the street and try to put out fires or interfere with think of that stuff. just protect your property. isn't that what he told you? >> i believe so. i was just going to grab the garbage can, the dumpster that belonged to the car source that was on the car source property. >> this is before you headed south towards the 63rd streetcar

source. >> yes. >> this is before you decided to go down there. >> yes. >> this is before you shot mr. rosen balm, and at the person that was jumping over you. correct? >> yes. >> so you knew that this was a crowd that would not react very favorably to going out there and trying to put out fires or interfere with that stuff. you knew that. >> i didn't. >> even after that incident, you still didn't have any idea this is a crowd that's not going to take it very well. >> it seems like they were more mad at the part of him screaming what he screamed after, not putting out the fire. that's what it seemed like to me. >> he screams to them, screw around and find out. after they had just tried to light a dumpster on fire. >> yes. >> so what did you interpret

that to mean? >> i don't know. i didn't witness it a at the time. i grabbed the dumpster a minute after and tried to pull it on to the property. >> it seems to me saying you light stuff on fire and i'm going to use my gun. i'll withdraw the question. >> it doesn't matter what it seems to you. you can ask your questions. that's fine. >> had it was shortly after that incident that we just watched where you were interviewed by richie mcginnis, correct? >> yes. >> you said you have never heard of him before this night? >> i have not. >> so why did you talk to him? >> he seemed like a nice guy. >> did he introduce himself as from the media?

>> he didn't specifically say, hey, i'm from the media. he was like hey, do you want an interview. >> and when you heard him can ask you to do an interview, you didn't think that meant he was from the media? >> he didn't specifically say he was from the media. >> but you assumed when he says i'm going to interview, he's from the media. >> he did not. >> you didn't know what media company he worked for? >> correct. >> but you agreed to have you interview you on camera. >> can we please play exhibit number 16.

>> the video, you indicate that it you have your ar-15 to protect yourself, krkt? >> yes. >> and you indicate that you're going to run out there and treat anyone who needs medical help, correct? >> yes. >> were you going to bring the

gun along. >> to defend yourself while you're treating someone? >> if i needed to defend myself while treating somebody, yes. >> if you didn't think there was friction with the crowd and you're out there trying to help, why did you expect there to be any dangerous? >> from the previous nights when i saw people being assaulted. >> were they medics being assaulted? >> i don't know who they were. one of them was just trying to put out a fire at his businesses. >> so you saw someone put out a fire. >> yes. >> but if you're going to hurt people, why would you expect anyone would try to hurt you? >> i don't know. somebody did try to hurt me. i was helping people. >> thate