mr. rittenhouse. and mr.hards talks about how well in the state's opening he heard nothing about provocation. mr. richards knows it's the specific thing that instruction we get from the judge at the end of the trial. had we mentioned in the beginning he would have objected. he would have objected. now, let's talk about this threat. the supposed threat. mr. richards talked about that gas station and showed the video and showed mr. rosenbaum at the end. attorney binger had said he is not in this video as it started and you don't hear anything from him. and that is true. at the very end, he is seen standing quite a bit away from mr. bauch and mr. rittenhouse. this is where that supposed threat happened. there's a distance between them. the back, the protesters are pushed back. and you never hear any threat. you hear nothing. and mr. -- and apparently that is what the defense accepting where the threat happened mr. rittenhouse does not accept that he says it happened a block or two north. so they can't agree on w

mr. rittenhouse.n the defense concocted this they were trying to take my gun story, they left out that it is literally strapped to him. he shot an unarmed man four times because he was so scared that mr. rosenbaum was going to take the gun away from him when it was attached to him. it's an absolute red herring, an absolute ridiculous argument. imminent threat. not oh, in five minutes after we get beat up, then i might be a threat. imminent threat. you've heard all the videos. i'm not going to go into it anymore great length, but when you listen to the crowd as mr. rittenhouse is running, they start yelling after he's running, get him. also, as people are approaching him at the end, they're asking why did you shoot him? why did you shoot him? these are people that were provoked because they witnessed an attack or heard shots or heard he was attacking and they took action. as bmr. binger said, i probably wouldn't do it either. but that they did it is brave and they did not sit there to be killed. kyle r

mr. rittenhouse have to do to avoid that? take one step back. mr. rosenbaum is no threat. and mr. rittenhouse is responsible for every round of that gun. it did not have to happen as fast as mr. rittenhouse made it happen. he could have held back in one shot. at two shots. the guy in the blue hoodie who came in attempt to kick him didn't get four shots. mr. rosenbaum didn't get four shots. the defendant has the ability to gauge what he's doing and stop shooting. mr. richards talks about the threat be immobilized. what threat does someone 6 inches shorter than you who's already been hit in the hip have? a kill shot in the back? hit him. kick him. knee him. anything else. and mr. rosenbaum and mr. rittenhouse are alive. because the defense talks about games that the prosecution has played. let's talk about games. let's talk about how mr. rittenhouse on that night did not tell joanne black, dominic fieldler, about this grabbing of the gun. about oh, i was afraid they were going to use the gun against me. that is because once mr. rittenhouse and his team understood that an unarmed pers

mr. rittenhouse. no one is saying that mr. rittenhouse didn't have a right to defend himself this case is about the right to use deadly force and i want to talk about that standard because attorney richards, perhaps on accident, misstated it. he said that the standard is that it could cause death or bodily harm to mr. rittenhouse or that it is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to mr. rittenhouse. that is absolutely not what the standard is. and that is not what this trial is about. the standard is the defendant may intentionally use force, which is intended tore likely to cause death or great bodily harm, such as firing an ar-15 only if the defendant reasonably believed that the force used was necessary -- was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. not oh, if you repeatedly smashed one's face it might repeatedly danger jerg or this could have happened. imminent death or great bodily harm. there is an old phrase that i could kill you with my bare hands. and then there is literally no eviden

mr. rittenhouse?yeah, you read earlier in your show that really compelling statement from the family of anthony huber, who really just said, expressed their disappointment at the result. there was another statement from rosenbaum and from gaige grosskreutz who was injured in the shooting with kyle rittenhouse. and in that statement they say that night in kenosha, gaige grosskreutz and anthony huber acted heroically, they sought to end violence, and that while today's verdict may mean justice delayed, it will not mean justice denied. that is the sentiment you heard from the families as they were leaving the court. one thing to point out, rachel, is these are families who have expressed frustration over the course of the trial that they didn't feel like their loved ones were being defended or represented in the courtroom very well. i mean, at one point you even had the prosecution go after rosenbaum, who was a victim here, who lost his life in that shooting. and he said something along the lines. a napo

mr. rittenhouse?ah, you've read earlier in your show, the really compelling statement from the family of anthony huber who really just said, and express their disappointment at the result, there was another statement from frozen bombs and from the cross course who was injured in the shooting, with kyle rittenhouse, in that statement they say the night in kenosha they in many others acted heroically, did not seek violence, but sought to end violence. what we need right now is justice, not more violence. they say that justice is not denied. that is a sentiment that you heard from the families as they were leaving the court. i mean one thing to point out rachel these are families who have expressed frustration over the course of the trial that they didn't feel like their loved ones were being defended, or represented in the courtroom very well. i won't point you even had the prosecution go after rosenbaum who was a victim here, who lost his life in that shooting he said something along the lines of had a

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.

mr. rittenhouse testifying, this court addressed various things not only mr. rittenhouse, but the lawyers. you had cited various statues and asked if anything would be coming up, for example, one of the other things was 90404. you had said that based on the information that had come out of the trial, nothing had changed as it relates to your ruling. shortly there after, 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 rules that very day. that very morning. it appears to be that there are two really elements the court wants to consider when making a determination on a mistrial for what amounts to prosecutorial overreach and the first one is the prosecutor's actions must be intentional in the esense of a culpable state of mind and a nature of awareness that his activity would be prejudicial to the defense. i would argue to you that that's clearly where i'm at. you had warn

mr. rittenhouse on video, had any type of contact with him any way? >> i've had no contact with kyle rittenhouse. but i have looked at footage to just go over it, yes. >> and does your footage capture any contact maybe not personal contact, anything you saw mr. rittenhouse doing that evening? >> yes. >> can you describe that? >> so antifa and the rioters were going head-to-head with the police in front of the courthouse and as they were doing so issue the police responded, i think, i believe they called unlawful assembly of some sort, antifa were throwing rocks at the police officers and even trying to get inside the hood of one of the police vehicles and this is all documented on footage i submitted, as well. to answer your question, down the street, the rioters were grabbing concrete slabs, throwing them on the floor to create more rocks and to throw them at police officers, launching fireworks and other explosives that i couldn't identify, but as they were being pushed down the street, they passed car source two and the rioters identified individual

mr. rittenhouse feel that he was in harm's way. that is i think a little easier for mr. rittenhouse and harder for the prosecution. after that, he started running -- he left this dead body and then started running with a gun. and then mr. huber unarmed with a skateboard went to try to stop what many people thought like it sounded like an active shooter. for there, self-defense i think is much harder and the provocation instruction which in my view is actually quite confusing in the actual jury instructions, but under the wisconsin law, if mr. rittenhouse provoked mr. huber's actions with the skateboard, he can't use self-defense. so that prove provocation argument is much stronger for mr. huber's death because it was really between the i wilkilling mr. rosenbaum and then injuring others that i think that the jury will have an easier time finding mr. rittenhouse's actions unreasonable. >> and let's talk about the jury. these are the first few hours of deliberation before lunch. what are these first few hours like and what do you take away from the first request we received

mr. rittenhouse was not the aggressor. he did not provoke any of this. but katy, in the eyes of the law, mr. rittenhouse was a victim. >> i know there's no double jeopardy in this country, paul, but is it possible for this case to go federal? could a federal prosecutor pick this up? >> it's possible. but typically we see those in civil rights cases, and this isn't a civil rights case. the truth is this is a tough case for prosecutors because some of the state's own witnesses testified in favor -- or their testimony advanced the government's case. one witness testified that the first person who rittenhouse shot, a man named rosenbaum, tried to grab rittenhouse's gun. another witness said mr. rittenhouse shot a second person who was attacking him with a skateboard and a third person who he shot was pointing a gun at him. this will be a difficult case whether the prosecution is state or federal. >> julius, you are in wisconsin. you understand how wisconsin juries work, how the courtrooms work out there, and the reaction. in looking at what the reverend was

mr. rittenhouse faced a deadly threat. has to decide is whether rittenhouse was the aggressor. if he started the fights with the three people who he shot, he can't claim self-defense under the law. but if mr. rittenhouse was attacked first, he's entitled to use force to save his own life. >> paul butler, dave gutierrez, thanks to both of us. >> jurors in the ahmaud arbery case heard evidence in the case. here's how one officer described a conversation with one of the accused men. >> while speaking with you, did he ever use the word burglary? >> no, ma'am. >> did he ever use the word trespass? >> no, ma'am. >> did he ever tell you he was attempting to make a citizens arrest? >> no, ma'am. >> we are going to continue to monitor developments in both of these trials over the coming days. next, for weeks we've been hearing about and, frankly, witnessing democratic infighting over the biden agenda. now some infighting among the republican ranks, targeting gops who voted yes. and later, the sweet spot, the single hour to go to bed

mr. rittenhouse about wishing he had his ar-15 when property was being damaged. help me understand the legal significance in your view of what the prosecutor is trying to do here. >> well, you know, the law in illinois, wisconsin and most states actually is that you cannot use deadly physical force to defend property. there are some exceptions maybe for defense of your home in certain situations but certainly not commercial out in the street. >> paul, forgive me. >> i ask the court to strongly admonish him, and the next time it happens i'll be asking for a mistrial with prejudice. he's an experienced attorney and he knows better. >> 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. you did on the one motion, and in fact i granted your motion for reconsider -- excuse me, i granted. >> we have not filed a motion to reconsider this case. >> forgive me, that was their motion. but i said i denied it o

mr. rittenhouse's fifth amendment rights. he's jaded to the prosecution when they say trust us, they use this all the time. he's thinking hey, do i want an appellate issue where i winked and nodded at the foundation. they have not proven there's some sort of distortion. >> neil: andwhen a digital image is the expanded as we would let's say on a smart phone, there's some distortion that occurs. but this distortion in the eyes of the defense makes it look unfair to kyle rittenhouse. they're saying he wasn't pointing a gun earlier than thought. so this idea that he was threatened and responded to that, that was the entire prosecution's argument. that chef brought this on himself and that this was not a self-defense. they have great import in that. but if the judge were to allow these images, what kind of a difference would that make? >> well, it comes down to how clean the images are to the jurors. if the jurors look at it and say i'm seeing a bigger blurry image where he may or may not have been pointing the gun, it's not going

"for months, the left unjustly tried "to convict mr rittenhouse." of anthony huber, one of the people killed by kyle rittenhouse, released a statement after the verdict was announced, saying they were heartbroken. they also said, that: "the verdict sends an unacceptable message that "armed civilians can turn up in any town, incite violence "and then use the danger they've "created to justify shooting people in the street." quinn rallins is a civil rights attorney at loevy & loevy. he's counsel to anthony huber�*s family. speaking earlier to us from chicago, he said the family is heartbroken and still traumatised. we are thinking about anthony's family, karen and john huber. they are heartbroken and angry — heartbroken that they'll never see their son again, but also angry at the verdict. they didn't attend the trial, as many of you all know, because they were traumatised already by the videos of their son's murder, and didn't want to see much of that, and also hurt by public comments, insensitive about their son, so my view is the bottom line is ther

mr. rittenhouse engaged in self-defense.tion might want to move the timeframe outward to ask questions like, what situation did he place himself in leading up to those offense, and what occurred before those events took place? timing i think is going to be interesting as we get into presentation of evidence. stephanie: we know that the defense is saying kyle rittenhouse was acting as self-defense in those chaotic moments that you described. in the simplest terms, what is -- what does his legal team need to show to prove that? >> they do not need to show anything the prosecution needs is proof that mr. rittenhouse acted in self-defense.. it's an affirmative defense in wisconsin, self-defense. it is a justification. so, if any evidence is raised by the defense that mr. rittenhouse acted in self-defense, that's either through cross examination or presentation of testimony, then the prosecution then takes on the burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury. and self-defense in kindn of sentence or two is

also in the statement released by anthony's parents, they said, "neither mr rittenhouse, nor the kenoshaorised" — their words — "this bloody rampage will escape justice." what does that mean? well, this criminal trial is really about accountability for kyle rittenhouse — that was the intention of that criminal trial. our case is a federal civil rights lawsuit against law enforcement, who allowed this circus to happen. it's about accountability for law enforcement. we believe that they were aware, that they knew that armed individuals planned to patrol the streets and threatened to harm citizens and did nothing to stop it. in fact, we believe that they encouraged it — that they allowed rittenhouse and other armed individuals to play by a different set of rules and move freely, to terrorise protesters. but this is — the real caveat is that we also have different legal claims that we are moving on and a different burden to prove, so this criminal case, the burden was on the prosecutors to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, rittenhouse was not reasonably in fear for their safety. our civil suit

mr. rittenhouse, by kyle rittenhouse. of course the jury is saying that was justified, they acquitted him on the counts that he faced. but that coming in from the family of anthony huber right now. >> shaquille brewster with that for us, shaq, thank you. joyce vance, the huber statement brings up something uncomfortable. two people died, one almost died. and nobody's paying any penalty. now, some could argue that the trial itself was a form of penalty for mr. rittenhouse, what was facing him. but how does the huber family get closure? i don't know if they ever will. >> you know, it's a really difficult issue. and i'll speak to it personally, because my father-in-law who was a federal judge was murdered because of his judicial service. and ultimately the man who was responsible for killing him was convicted at trial in both state and federal settings. and that fact of conviction does give families an enormous amount of closure. and something i've always been acutely aware of as a prosecutor is that there are a number of th

mr. rittenhouse would kill him. the defense got this witness to admit it wasn't until he was pointing his gun at rittenhouse that rittenhouse fired. so that could bolster rittenhouse's claim he shot in self-defense because he believed he faced a deadly threat. >> wait, but paul, i mean, we just heard the testimony where he said he thought it was an active shooter, so does that not -- i mean, at a minimum cancel out that little thing that the defense got him the say on the stand? >> well, in fact, he was right. kyle rittenhouse was an active shooter and he already killed two people. what citizens are supposed to do in that situation is to call the police to alert authorities. this witness testified he put his hands in the air but when he saw mr. rittenhouse rerack his rifle, he was afraid for his life. the videotape is the star witness in this case so the jurors will look at the videotape and hear this testimony and decide whether they believe this witness or whether they believe mr. rittenhouse. >> now, in my intro t

about a quarter mile from the courthouse here, the first time he attempted to explain it, rittenhouse fell apart. >> mr. rosenbaum was now running from my right side. i was corner in front of me. there were -- >> the judge gave him a break to compose himself and came back. rittenhouse ultimately explained that he was cornered in the car lot where the deadly encounter happened. that rosenbaum grabbed his gun and he opened fire. he ran. he was hit with a rock, kicked in the hit and kicked twice with a skateboard by anthony hubber. he shot and killed him. he injured gage but only after he pointed a pistol at him. on the long cross examination, the prosecutor tried to get rittenhouse to say that he intended to kill people that night. >> you intended to kill him, correct? >> i didn't intend to kill him. i intended to stop the person that tried to take my gun. >> the judge gave the prosecutor an unusually harsh admonishment for working in evidence that was previously band and that prompted the defense to ask for a mistrial. >> thanks, mike. back to you as the news breaks. we'll get back to the courthouse. th

mr rittenhouse and the men he shot are all white.secutors said that the teenager had behaved like an armed vigilante who provoked several violent encounters. our correspondent nomia iqbal reports from kenosha. the defendant will rise and face — the defendant will rise and face the _ the defendant will rise and face the jury _ the defendant will rise and face the jury. fi— the defendant will rise and face the jury-— face the jury. a dangerous vigilante _ face the jury. a dangerous vigilante or— face the jury. a dangerous vigilante or someone - face the jury. a dangerous i vigilante or someone answer asking and self—defense? the 12 men and women of thejury accepted the teenager's claim that he killed out of fear for his safety. cheering outside court, the political divisions this case has caused were clear. you attack me, i have the right to defend myself, that's was what kyle was on trial for, that was he was acquitted for. are you telling me that if two guys come up to you and accost you, you can't defend yourself? that's what was on

mr. rittenhouse. >> you testified that you observed mr. characterized as him trying to de-escalate the situation, is that right? >> yes. >> were you wearing your body cam when that happened? >> yes. >> do you have footage of that? >> yes. >> have we seen that yet? >> it was submitted to you guys. >> but have you played that? >> no. >> there was a video that was played of the incident at the ultimate gas station with mr. rosenbaum in the dumpster, fair to say? >> the flaming dumpster. >> you are bristling at that location when that'll happen to come correct? >> yes. >> was the defendant? >> i can't recall if he was there or not. i was there. >> you never saw him at that scene, correct? >> no. >> you also mentioned that at one point, you observed a fire at a mechanic shop. do you remember where that was? >> it was a couple blocks away from sheraton. i don't remember exactly. >> that was some tires that were on fire in the middle of that lot, correct? and you have no idea who started the fire? speak up now. >> you're not here testifying that m

mr. rittenhouse as a trigger happy, vigil ante. on direct examination from his own defense attorney, rittenhouse came across more like a boy scout who was there to provide medical aid. what the prosecution has to do now is to dirty rittenhouse up. evidence that the judge won't allow. part of the concern and controversy this afternoon was about an earlier incident in which rittenhouse sees people who he thinks are looting at a cvs and he says i wish i had my gun so i could shoot them. the judge won't allow the jury to hear that evidence. >> let me play some of this back and forth between the judge and the prosecution. again, you know, it's not something you see every day, particularly between the prosecution or prosecutor and a judge. you sometimes see this between a defense attorney and a judge. let me play these back and forths. number seven and number eight, guys. >> he's commenting on my client's right to remain silent. >> no, your honor. i am making the point that after hearing everything in the case, now he's tailoring his stor

mr. rittenhouse? >> a correct beam act okay. now do you agree your firearm i appointed at mr. rittenhouse, correct? >> yes. >> once your firearm is pointed out mr. rittenhouse, that's whe he fired? >> no. >> sir, does it look like be me that looks like my shopping vaporized, yes.ze >> has been vaporized at the point and you're gun directly a him, yes? >> yes. y >> so when you were standing 3- if feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired? >> a correct. >> it wasn't until you pointed him advanced at him with your gun pointed at him that he fired, right? >> are.th >> so that's kind of it right there. pretty much the end of s the tr because when someone runs up an point a loaded gun in your face you are allowed to shoot that person. that is called self-defense. that's the rule. it has been the will throughout human history in every society on earth since people lived in caves. according to the prosecution's star witness that self-defense is exactly what happened here. as a matter of law, gauge just proved that carl rittenhouse acted to defend himself from harm. so

mr. rittenhouse of looking at his attorney, does he want him to look at the ceiling? >> i'll continue, your honor. >> go ahead. >> you at this very moment announced yourself as friendly because you were worried that the people on the other side of that street would see you as hostile, fair? >> i can't tell you how i think they would see me but i told them i was friendly. >> i was asking you what you thought when you said this. you said you announced yourself as friendly because you thought to yourself at that very moment, i'm walking into a group that is hostile to me, isn't that true? >> it looks hostile, they were throwing rocks at the armored police cars. >> and you felt it was necessary to tell them friendly friendly friendly so they wouldn't do anything to you, fair? >> yes. >> let's konts the video. >> there's a person that comes up to you carrying a skate board, do you see that? >> i do. >> and he's got fire extinguisher slung over his shoulder? >> yes. >> and he says something about putting out fires, and he said, they know, they know. did i understand you cor

mr. rittenhouse. no one is saying that mr. rittenhouse did not have a right to defend himself. this case is about the right to use deadly force. hit him, kick him, knee him, anything else. and mr. rosenbaum and mr. rittenhouse are alive. >> reporter: in total, rittenhouse faced six charges until the misdemeanor of a minor in possession of a weapon was dismissed over the gun not being long enough to be considered illegal. rittenhouse still faces five felony charges, all of which he pleaded not guilty to, the most serious from the shooting and killing of anthony huber, second of two people killed that night. he faces first-degree intentional homicide. lesser offenses of second-degree homicide or first-degree homicide could be considered. they could be considered if the jury is not satisfied of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the original charge. in regards to the shooting of gaige grosskreutz who survived, rittenhouse is charged with attempted first-degree intentional homicide with the use of a dangerous weapon. the judge said the jury could consider attempted second-degree in

you'll hear a mention ofjoseph rosenbaum — he was the first person mr rittenhouse shot and killed.t on the defendant because they know you can't claim self—defense against an unarmed man like this. you lose the right to self—defense when you're the one who brought the gun, when you're the one creating the danger, when you're the one provoking other people. the bbc�*s nomia iqbal has been following the trial from kenosha. the question for the jury is essentially this — was kyle rittenhouse an armed vigilante or was he acting in self—defense? this is a case that has massively divided people. just outside on the courthouse steps, there are people who are protesting, some calling kyle rittenhouse a hero, others saying that this entire trial is a sham. there are national guard troops all on standby, just in case protests do happen or in case they turn violent. the defence are portraying kyle rittenhouse as a courageous teenager who came to kenosha to try and protect businesses and to prevent theft. they say he only used his gun in self—defense. whereas the prosecution argue that kyle ri

mr. rittenhouse. >> correct. >> okay. now. you agree our firearm is pointed at mr. when you were standing 3 to 5 feet from him, with our arms up in the air he never fired, right? >> correct. >> it was not until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, with your gun, now our hands down pointed at him, he fired? >> right. >> correct. mark: interesting thing about gaige grosskruetz. he first spoke to police he more got to -- forgot to mention he had a gun, pointing if at kyle rittenhouse, then rittenhouse fired. to you in l.a., everyone that you speak to, says, when asked, is rittenhouse guilty, they say, well? why was he out there. with an ar? the issue was, was he defending himself, you can be a teen vigilante and still shoot in self-defense. whether we like him or not. doesn't matter under the law. lady justice is blind. she does not care who he is. >> nancy, first -- not a machine gun, it not an assault rifle. reporter: is it. nancy: ar15. >> that happened here. the essence of self-defense. the whole case with the jury, will boil down to whether he was on offe

mr. rittenhouse?yes. >> and you said that at least one of those was intermediate up to four feet away? >> yes. >> reporter: then came the graze wound to the head and the shot to the back. >> and is it your opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the back to front shots to the head and then the kill shot to the back would have been while he was falling, or perpendicular to the ground? >> the only way that the trajectories of the gunshot wounds to the right side of the head and the back make sense is if he's more horizontal to the ground, and that is occurring at the time that the last two gunshot wounds are heard on the video. >> reporter: the defense wanted to underscore how fast this deadly interaction occurred. >> the fourth shot is .76 of a second after that. that is how fast the four shots were fired out of my client's gun. and he goes from the furthest four feet to touching the gun, correct? >> yes. >> so if i was charging like a bull and diving, that would be consistent? >> it w

mr. rittenhouse, that's ryan standing there in the ultimate gas lot. correct? >> yes. >> let's play this. >> it we just saw you run through this video, correct? >> yes. >> i started this video at the 54 minute and 30 second mark. it's now paused at the 54 minute and 56 second mark. so for 26 seconds, kory has ryan on screen, center of this video, during that entire time, right? >> yes. >> and you run right past where kory is standing, right? >> yes. >> and ryan is loitering there in the middle of the screen for at least 26 seconds. right with? >> it's what it looks like on the screen. >> your testimony is you were trying your best to find ryan at the ultimate gas station at this point because you needed him to protect you with? >> i was looking for ryan, but i didn't notice him as i was running away, running towards car source. >> but for 26 seconds he's standing right there. >> yes, and when he's standing right there before i run with the fire extinguisher, i'm over here on the phone with dominic black. >> how long was your phone call? >> about 30 seconds. >>

mr. rittenhouse taking the stand.the jury is going to want to hear that although legally, don, it doesn't contribute to self-defense. but i've tried enough cases to know, you know, legal doesn't necessarily win the day. >> mr. bucher, i appreciate having you on. thanks so much. >> thanks, don. >>> three white men charged with killing a black jogger. the jury deciding if they're guilty is nearly all white with just one black juror. michael eric dyson is going to weigh in on the trial over ahmaud arbery's killing right after this. from dry and dull to firm and radiant. with olay body, i feel fearless in my skin. i don't just play someone brainy on tv - i'm an actual neuroscientist. and i love the science behind neuriva plus. unlike ordinary memory supplements, neuriva plus fuels six key indicators of brain performance. more brain performance? yes, please! neuriva. think bigger. ever rushed to a doctor's appointment and thought: [whispers] "couldn't i do this from home?" only to get inside, where time stands still. "how

mr. rittenhouse. agree? >> reporter: the defense presses further. >> when you were standing 3 to 5 feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right? >> reporter: correct. >> it wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun -- now your hands down pointed at him, that he fired, right? >> reporter: correct. >> reporter: prosecutors came back to specify with gross kreitz on the positioning of the gun. >> did you intentionally point your firearm at the defendant? >> no, i did not. >> did you feel there was an imminent danger that the defendant was going to kill you? >> yes, absolutely. >> is that the way you hold and point a gun when you're going to shoot it? >> no. >> reporter: the state was expected to rest its case early this week with estimates of tuesday, then it will be the defense's turn to present their case, and then finally the jury will be left with it to make a decision. so far the prosecution has called 19 witnesses. omar jimenez, cnn, kenosha, wisconsin. >>

mr. rittenhouse. no one is saying that mr. rittenhouse did not have a right to defend himself.his case is about the right to use deadly force. hit him, kick him, knee him, anything else. and mr. rosenbaum and mr. rittenhouse are alive. >> reporter: in total, rittenhouse faced six charges until the misdemeanor of a minor in possession of a weapon was dismissed early in the day over the gun not being long enough under wisconsin statutes to be considered illegal in the hands of a minor. but rittenhouse still faces five felony charges, all of which he pleaded not guilty to, the most serious comes from the shooting and killing of anthony huber, second of two people killed that night. rittenhouse faces first degree intentional homicide, but the lesser offenses of second degree intentional homicide or first degree reckless homicide could also be considered. those offenses could be considered if the jury is not satisfied of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the original charge. in regard to the shooting of gaige grosskreutz who survived after being shot, rittenhouse is charged with f

you'll hear a mention ofjoseph rosenbaum, the first person mr rittenhouse shot and killed.nbaum was going to take that gun and use it on the defendant because they know you can't claim self—defence against an unarmed man like this. you lose the right to self—defence when you're the one who brought the gun, when you're the one creating the danger, when you're the one provoking other people. the bbc�*s nomia iqbal has been following the trial from kenosha. the question for the jury is essentially this — was kyle rittenhouse an armed vigilante or was he acting in self—defence? this is a case that has massively divided people. just outside on the courthouse steps, there are people who are protesting, some calling kyle rittenhouse a hero, others saying that this entire trial is a sham. there are national guard troops all on standby, just in case protests do happen or in case they turn violent. the defence are portraying kyle rittenhouse as a courageous teenager who came to kenosha to try and protect businesses and to prevent theft. they say he only used his gun in self—defence.

mr. rittenhouse questions about not speaking about his self-defense if it was self-defense at the time. the judge had indicated he wasn't sure he would like that line of questioning, but he didn't make a final decision. now mr. rittenhouse is in the jury box on the stand and the prosecution says "opening the door" what we call, to a line of questioning that goes to their credibility, because that's what the jury is, part of what the jury has to judge in this case is do we believe mr. rittenhouse or do we believe the forensic evidence, the video and what we're hearing from other witnesses? all trial lawyers do this, try to ask the questions that plant the seeds for the questions you want the jury to ask themselves. and so it's very hard for me to see this as a mistrial with prejudice, meaning the prosecution can't come back and try again, but we'll see what happens. i have no idea what this judge will do. >> interesting, because you know, for civilians that don't normally get a chance to look at the inner workings of a court case, you know, it seems shocking but is there an impact, do yo

mr rittenhouse and the men he shot are all white.cutors said that the teenager had behaved like an armed vigilante who provoked several violent encounters. our correspondent nomia iqbal reports from kenosha. the defendant will rise and face the jury and harken to its verdicts. a dangerous vigilante or someone acting in self—defence? after 26 hours, the jury decided kyle rittenhouse�*s fate. we, thejury, find the defendant, kyle h rittenhouse, not guilty. the 12 men and women of thejury accepted the teenager's claim that he killed out of fear for his safety. somehow, some way, those 12jurors found that he was innocent. yelling. applause. woo! outside court, the political divisions this case has caused were clear. you attack me, i have the right to defend myself! that's was what kyle was on trial for and kyle is now found acquitted of, 0k? so you're telling me if two guys come up to you and accost you, you can't defend yourself? that's what was on trial today! there is no way in a law — in a land of law where a person can shoot three p

mr. rittenhouse. no one is saying that mr. rittenhouse did not have a right to defend himself. this case is about the right to use deadly force. hit him, kick him, knee him. anything else. and mr. rosenbaum and mr. rittenhouse are alive. >> reporter: in total, rittenhouse faced six charges until the misdemeanor of a minor in possession of a weapon was dismissed early in the day. over the gun not being long enough, under wisconsin statutes to be considered illegal in the hands of a minor. but rittenhouse still faces five felony charges. all of which, he pleaded not guilty to. the most serious comes from the shooting and killing of anthony huber. second of two people killed that night. rittenhouse faces first-degree intentional homicide but the lesser offenses of second-degree intentional homicide or first-degree reckless homicide could also be considered. those offenses could be considered if the jury is not satisfied of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the original charge. in regards to the shooting of gaige grosskreutz, who survived after being shot, rittenhouse is charged w

mr. rittenhouse, was on his back.hat he was running initially, but the allegations from the defense, anyway, is that he was struck in the head by this skateboard that was being wielded by the individual who subsequently was also shot. so, self-defense is difficult. you can't hang your hat on one particular issue. but this was a significant civil unrest and the judge has allowed the defense to call these individuals rioters and looters, which i was a little surprised at, but we'll have to see. but it's clear that, in my opinion, on count one, when he was on his back and unfortunately and tragically shot mr. rosenbaum, the defense has an uphill climb on that issue. the other counts, i think, are going to be easier. i believe, and i have said time and time again, the government is significantly overcharged this case and is going to confuse the jury so badly that i don't think the jury's going to know what to do. >> explain that, when you say significantly overcharged. what's the line that you believe they crossed? >> wel

mr. rittenhouse, how far do you think that is? >> three or four inches. >> and if a weapon is loaded and you rerack, what happens? >> if there is already a round in the chamber, when you rerack the rifle, a live round would come out chambering a new round and into the chamber. >> now, we got to the point where mr. gross kreutz is standing in front of you with his hands up. are you a ware he is armed? >> at that point i see a pistol in his hand. >> is that the same or different from your first encounter with him? >> that is different. >> and he is standing, you said, how close to you? >> what i remember is our feet were touching what it seems like. >> okay. and you do what? >> my rifle is down, his hands are up. his pistol is in his hand and then he looks at me and that's when he brings his arm down like this, his arm is like that with me on the ground and his pistol is pointed at me and that's when i shoot him. >> how many times did you shoot him? >> once. >> and after you shoot him, do you know where you shot him? >> no. >> what

mr. rittenhouse. agree?nding 3 to 5 feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right? >> correct. >> it wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun -- not your hands down -- pointed at him -- that he fired, right? >> correct. >> reporter: prosecutors came back to specify with grosskreutz on the positioning of the gun. >> did you intentionally point your firearm at the defendant? >> no, i did not. >> did you feel there was an imminent danger that the defendant was going to kill you? >> yes, absolutely. >> is that the way you hold and point a gun when you're going to shoot it? >> no. >> reporter: and this is likely the first time rittenhouse and grosskreutz have been face to face since the shooting when grosskreutz walked into the courtroom before his testimony, rittenhouse looked over at him approx multiple times and was very attentive during the testimony. moving forward, prosecutors have been expected to rest their case early-this week with estimates of tuesday.

mr. rittenhouse. but there are still very raw emotions here. because there is a lot of talk about if he happened to be black, what would this be, how would this havended. and those discussions are going to be going on in america for time in memory um and that is not something that this court was trying to concern itself with. it was trying to get the jury to see things very plainly with the evidence that was in front of them. and they did so. they looked at it. we know that they were diligent because they spent 25 hours every single day for five, six hours a day, looking at this video trying to discern what the truth was here and trying to make a -- come up with a verdict they felt was just. of course people not everyone is going to feel this is just. there are two people who are dead and there is one person who was terribly injured in all of this. one thing that we learned that night in august when the shooting happened is that a lot of folks had guns. someone fired before mr. rittenhouse fired, there is someone who had a gun that was not perm

mr. rittenhouse walked. >> good morning, paul, this is eddie glaude, i wanted to ask the question now thaty case, what do you think is on the horizon there? it's different kind of money, different sort of situation, but it presents an interesting sort of set of challenges. tell us a little bit about what you think we should be prepared for with the arbery decision. >> so, every case is different with different sets of facts, and in fact, i don't think that the defendants who killed mr. arbery have the same quality of defense and probably not the same resources that mr. rittenhouse had, and so we saw when travis mcmichael, the shooter, took the stand, he was not nearly as effective as kyle rittenhouse when he testified. indeed, eddie, when i listened to travis mcmichael testify about how these three white men hunted down and shot an african american man after demanding that he justify his presence on public streets, i was reminded of slave capture, and in fact, the georgia citizen arrest law that the defendants are relying on comes from georgia law passed back in the day that was about lett

mr. rittenhouse leaving. >> that is correct. also. >> tell the jury about assumed time. >> so when looking at these videos, i have no continuous video stream that takes me from event one into the front end of what we're calling event two. there's a gap. so what i did was i took a look on the video, two that we're looking at now, you see as bgo video. and i measured a distance at the pace that kyle rittenhouse was running, jogging, whatever you refer to it. i have a known distance and i have a time it took him to run that known distance. because i also have another known distance, where he came from in the prior, what i did was applied basic math, took him this long to run this, i will just take that same time of running over here. what i did, i put that in as the gap to fill it in. it does not address if he may have stopped, simply addresses if it was a constant state of motion. >> now what was your general -- i don't want to say deviation, but what number did you come up with for that? >> basically i used 9.05, or nine seconds,

mr. rittenhouse. accounts associated with the proud boys on the chatting app telegram were equally excited and so, carol, you see how this meshes with the point cynthia and courtney were making and to courtney's point, the president is, indeed, an institutionalist and as a man of a certain era in american politics, he doesn't think of a jury verdict this way. this is kind of advanced kind of fund-raising combined with the new my -- nihilism and scary thought that they're motivated by this verdict. >> you know, brian, i'm so glad you asked that because it's sort of sweet and old-fashioned for a president and i'm not being partisan at all, just referring to the historic sweep we've had in the last two decades, it's sort of old fashioned for a president to not try to argue that a jury decision is illegitimate because they don't believe in it politically. he and his party are troubled by the idea of someone carrying an ar-15, especially a teenager who wasn't legally allowed to buy one but was given one by