mcginnis does not have a self-defense status because the defendant has no right of self-defense has to any harm he caused to mr. mcginnis. that's what the instruction is telling the jury. but if he was acting lawfully in self-defense with respect to mr. rosenbaum, then it kills one of the elements. i think i'm reading that right. it gives him an absolution with respect to the element of -- what is the precise element? >> number two? >> yeah. unreasonable and substantial risk of death. it says then the jury can't find it, well, if they can't find that, they can't find one of the elements so they have to find the defendant not guilty. >> judge, do you think it's appropriate on page 9 to say the tft was acting lawfully in self-defense as it relates to joseph rosenbaum? i think that makes it clearer. >> where do you want it put in? >> where, did you say? >> yeah. >> on page 9, it would be the -- right, so there's a subheading determining whether the beliefs were reasonable. i think it's the third or fourth to the last sentence. >> okay. with respect to the -- >> joseph rosenbaum. >> with r

self-defense -- excuse me. criminal code in wisconsin provides that a person is privileged to intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what he reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his own person by the other person. however, he may intentionally use only such force as he reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. he may not intentionally use force, which is intended or likely to cause death unless he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. as applied to this case, the effect of the law of self-defense is the defendant is not guilty of any homicide offense if the defendant reasonably believed that he was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with his own person or reasonably believed the force used by him -- excuse me -- and reasonably believed the force that the force used by him was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily har

york —— self—defense case. the bottom — york —— self—defense case.k —— self—defense case. the bottom line is the jury did - york —— self—defense case. the bottom line is the jury did not i bottom line is the jury did not believe — bottom line is the jury did not believe that— bottom line is the jury did not believe that kyle _ bottom line is the jury did not| believe that kyle rittenhouse, bottom line is the jury did not - believe that kyle rittenhouse, then 17 years— believe that kyle rittenhouse, then 17 years old. — believe that kyle rittenhouse, then 17 years old, walking _ believe that kyle rittenhouse, then 17 years old, walking around - believe that kyle rittenhouse, then 17 years old, walking around with l believe that kyle rittenhouse, then 17 years old, walking around with a | 17 years old, walking around with a large _ 17 years old, walking around with a large automatic— 17 years old, walking around with a large automatic weapon, _ 17 years old, walking around with a large automatic weapon, was - 17 years old, walking around with a large a

security and defense. general james l jones, james earl jones, and also a chairman to the board of the atlantic council and major general arnold -- thank you for joining us. thank you for joining me and my salute to general powell. here at the atlantic council, we are committed to shaping the global future together with our allies and partners. we are dedicated to focusing on producing actionable recommendations with real world impact. the two individuals joining us today have done just that throughout their careers, significantly impacting u.s. department -- they will probably get into this into the conversation, they probably haven't impacted the plans and priorities as much as they would have liked to. we will get into that in the discussion. the council works to develop sustainable, nonpartisan strategies to addressed the most important security challenges facing the united states and its allies and partners. the center seeks to honor another general, general brent school craft, who passed away last ye

defense. in and out conversation will turn to what's going to happen next. what affect will this case have on things like vigilanteism and self-defense arguments? not to mention what happens immediately in the city of kenosha. joining me from the courthouse in kenosha, wisconsin, nbc correspondent shaquille brewster. former federal prosecutor paul butler. nbc legal analyst danny cevallos. and former assistant district attorney in milwaukee county, julius kim. shaq, what is it like in kenosha right now? >> katy, when that verdict was read we saw a large group of people on the courthouse steps. this was something highly anticipated especially as the jury got into day four of deliberations. but then someone came out of the courthouse, told the crowd the news, and you heard the divide that's reflected not just here in kenosha but all across the country. some people cheered, saying the second amendment prevailed. self-defense was a principle they were defending. and some people were upset by this i

security and defense. general james also executive chair, two-time chairman of the atlantic council of major general arnold so thank you for joining us and i'm sure you and everyone else jointly my salute general powell here we are committed to saving the global future together with our allies and partners with the dedicated focus on producing actionable recommendations with real-world facts. there are two others running us today who have done that throughout their careers, significantly impacting trust department defense plans and priority so i'll get into this is the conversation they haven't impacted the plans and priorities as much as they would like to have. working to develop sustainable nonpartisan oddities to address the most important security challenges facing united states and allies and partners. seeking to honor another general, he passed away last year in august seeks to honor his legacy service embodies nonpartisan commitment and security support for u.s. leadership in cooperation with allie

it was self-defense. wisconsin law does allow for deadly force when you think that you are under such threat. two of those people shot, died. one did in fact testify in this trial. so what we are doing today now that both the prosecution and defense rested, we are listening to the jury instructions from judge schroeder right now, then we anticipate that the prosecution's closing arguments will begin. they are given about an hour or two hours, then it will break for lunch and then will come back and have the defense, closing arguments, and so on and so forth. then there will be a rebuttal and this could go, we are told to anticipate until 8:00 p.m. eastern. we'll see if that microphone is coming back on as the instructions continue. >> i still have worked with the instructions all weekend, and we discussed them by email, and then i'm reading them and little things are striking me as i read them. but the jurors are never told to discuss self-defense except in the context of charged offenses. and what i was

, self-defense, self-defense. he had do it. he didn't back-pedal. he didn't apologize. he embraced the defense. for some people, men in particular, that may sound really good. on the other hand, you may have females or more liberal-leaning people who didn't appreciate the style necessarily, didn't appreciate the lack of apology, didn't appreciate what they may have perceived as a lack of respect for human life in that defense argument. so, again, it may depend on who is in the box and who is listening and that will dictate. >> thank you, gentlemen. i have to move on i appreciate it. undoubtedly, we will see you back here again. >>> this whole case is likely to come down to one key question. was it self-defense? elie honig is here in the studio with me to walk us through the self-defense claim. good to see you. thank you for joining us. it's been a while. i want to get into this idea about provocation. the defense is accusing the prosecution of lying when they say kyle rittenhouse provoked violence in kenosha. this

did the defense do what the defense needed to do here? >> so it's funny. throughout this trial, i have been a bit judgmental in regards to the prosecution. i didn't think they gave a very strong opening. i thought their presentation of the case was pretty flat, and i thought the prosecutor in many ways was flat. i didn't think it during his summation. i actually thought, he has a gentlemanly way about him and i think he used that along with being incredibly assertive to really make his points. i thought he was incredibly organized. i thought he pulled out those parts that he needed to, to corroborate and support his position that kyle rittenhouse, by coming out there that day, with that weapon, with that weapon that he really didn't understand how to use, slowly created a scenario of recklessness and chaos that led to these deaths. now the defense, it's true, you know, the big point is that the prosecution bears the burden. not just bearing the burden of proving his guilt but disproving self-defense. the defense, while they did a good job, they were a bit

critical to her defense.s doing that closing, i'd show that videotape in real time. >> martha: the defense is beginning their closing arguments. >> i'm showing you state's exhibit 18, which mr. binger just spent three or four minutes showing that mr. rosenbaum was not around. my client saw a chain, bag or whatever. ladies and gentlemen, we had this video almost as long as they have had this video. mr. binger will use there video to lie to your faces and tell you that kyle rittenhouse was taking advantage of the situation. >> i object, your honor. >> it's argument. >> it's in the picture. >> ladies and gentlemen, this case is not a game. it is my client's life. we don't play fast and loose with the facts, pretending that mr. rosenbaum was citizen a, number 1 guy. he was a bad man. he was there, he was causing trouble. he was a rioter. my client had to deal with him that night alone. when i say that the truth matters and this is not a game, what to i mean by that? mr. binger is the one that put on the candari b

nobody expects when the defense is self-defense to extol the virtues of the victim. that reality.ople are facing life in prison, i'm sure the lawyers are using what they can to combat it. here i imagine they were trying to say he's not a jogger through the neighborhood. he's been out here before. he's here for no other reason. whatever it is and again, we can disagree with it personally and i do and that's what i tried to say. >> the problem, michael, briefly, there is a manner to do that. we know in this profession it's very difficult and we know we represent people in some very extreme circumstances but you have to thread that needle. yes, you have to defend your client, yes, you have to say you're an immediate fear. you i have to say there are issues in the neighborhood that were amiss and i believe this is the issue but to completely dehumanize someone, what does nails or something else? i don't get it. i'll win cases and lose cases but i think i'll try the best i can to do what is ethically proper and not bury and nail the coffins of the dead and i just thought there is very

the whole issue here is self-defense. as the prosecutors try to take that away, that's the defense saying he felt threatened, was under threat and grade the prosecutors so far with a ways to go. >> yeah, and also a key point there, not only are they arguing self-defense by provocation, right? that was a key issue in this case whether or not prosecutors would even be allowed to argue about provocation which under wisconsin essentially takes away that self-defense claim. it's kind of a tricky legal burden shift, if you will, but i really think that, you know, commentators were saying that the prosecution had an uphill battle even going into today. i think even more so now after that just complete you know what show of dissell nation of the jury instructions. it was appalling what took place in that courtroom. the judge sounded like a first year law student in a criminal exam sort of -- he had like kind of a stream of consciousness talking to the jury. i really thrill that the confusion that he sewed among jurors is really g

the defense is saying we have what is called a perfect self-defense. we generated self-defense. it's been the junior. it's another thing the government has to prove didn't happen by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. you hammer away on the fact that it's justified and hope that they keep that burden in mind a they agree whatever they think happened, whatever bad jumps that kyle rittenhouse exhibited doesn't translate into proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he was unreasonable in defending himself. >> neil: so the uniqueness of wisconsin law that states the defense must cite some evidence of self-defense, it seems to be less of a burden for if defense by that definition or am i misinterpreting it? >> no, it's defendant friendly but it's not uncommon -- this is what is referred to as an affirmative defense. in other words, it's not in play until the defense has enough of a threshold showing of substantial evidence that it's part of the case. so again, that's the big reason why kyle rittenhouse testified, was to sufficiently generate self-defense. it's hard without him testifying h

the defense story. the law allows you to disregard his testimony from the witness stand if you don't find it credible. [ inaudible ] the law allows you to consider his actions at the time of the murder if you don't find him credible. intent to commit a crime. well, ladies and gentlemen, you've got to find they intended to commit these crimes, and how do you look at that? you look at the natural and necessary consequences of the act, right? natural and necessary consequences of an act. deadly force is the last resort. never point a gun at someone you do not intend to shoot. so when you start pointing a shotgun directly at somebody, what's your intention? the natural and necessary xwenss offense the act, you're going to kill this person. you're pointing at it. you may find intention or the absence of intention upon consideration of their words, their conduct. what did they do out there? their demeanor. their motive and other circumstances. so when you look at each defendant separately, because that's what

i -- you know, people have a right to self-defense.s well with a different reading of that, you know, event. yeah, i -- i don't really know how to respond to that. it's -- so many laws were brought up that were inconsistent with our world that we live in today, you know, making decisions about evidence based on video tape cases that they're citing. nobody uses videotape anymore. it's a digital world. we need to catch up quickly. >> susan hughes, i really hope that time is a friend to the family and you guys are able to process and grieve and make sense of this and that you lean on each other and get through it. i'm sorry to meet you under these circumstances, and i'm sorry that i've got to say that so often to so many families. i wish you well and god bless the family. i'm sorry for your loss. >> thank you. >> so, why did this happen? was it about getting the case wrong? did the jury get it wrong? i don't think so. did the prosecutors get it wrong? maybe. were they too ambitious? no one knows the pressure of a case like this better tha

because kyle rittenhouse defense was self-defense. in wisconsin, the law requires that when a self-defense claim is raised the prosecutors have to disprove self-defense. beyond a reasonable doubt. in most states it's just the opposite. if you claim self-defense the burden is on you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was self-defense. and also what happened in this case is that there was a jury instructions. that said in this case, that the jurors had to look at what happened through the eyes of then 17 year-old kyle rittenhouse. it wasn't in hindsight. they had to assess the reasonableness of the actions and decide whether or not his belief was he had to use self-defense was reasonable. apparently the jury bought it. every part of the legal system is has bias in it. in this one, i saw the bias really from the judge. i saw a judge who was very biassed in favor of mr. rittenhouse. and really against the prosecution. and there are just a lot of indications this judge was really in rittenhouse's corner. that bias was just absolute

his defense was that it was in self-defense and the jury apparently agreed with that. sara, let me come back to you because we do know that this case was full of emotion by both sides, by people in with ensomewhat, wisconsin. remember this all happened in february -- excuse me, in august i believe of 2020. it was in the summer of 2020 following the black lives matter protests, after the death of george floyd, of course, and so there was so much emotion, right, when all of this happened, and that emotion really, you know, came to fruition again as this trial was under way, and we know that the governor of wisconsin has been concerned about heightened emotion following any verdict. what is the status as far as security and that sort of thing right now? >> reporter: we knew that something was going to happen and that the jury had reached some sort of a verdict because all of a sudden there were a multiple number of deputies and members of the atf inside the court that had not been there or at least had not been visible throughout this trial. we also know that the national

defense as well as that citizen's arrest defense. jose? >> cal, thanks. and maya, what do you think of the prosecution's closing argument? we all saw it and heard it right here on msnbc. >> i thought she did a fantastic job. she showed up to do the job the prosecution has to do. as cal said, it's really making plain to the jury, here's what you're going to be asked to decide. and it's your decision. who do you believe? and walking the jury not just through each count, but the evidence that the prosecution submitted, both to show that there's evidence that this actually is a crime, are crimes, but it's also to eviscerate the defense and go to the credibility of travis mcmichaels, who took the stand and remember, her cross-examination of him was excellent, because she was really able to establish and she is reminding the jury of this in the closing, that he did not give the same statement when he was on the stand as he originally did the police, that he had time to craft this story in way that would help him at trial. and that he had t

that's what the defense seized on.their rebuttal. >> we don't play fast and loose with the facts. pretending that mr. rosenbaum was citizen "a" number one guy. he was a bad man. he was there. he was causing trouble. he was a rioter. and my client had to deal with him that night alone. >> mr. rosenbaum was shot because he was chasing my client and going to kill him, take his gun and carry out the threats he made. >> the defense attorney actually said -- i have never heard this before. i'll ask in a few minute he said he's happy the defendant shot and killed mr. rosenbaum because if he had n't he would have taken the weapon and used on other people. a closing argument has to be anchored to the facts but this judge who you know couldn't find enough opportunities to talk let them go and didn't say anything. that is a huge leap for this jury. i wonder if it bothered them because there's no fact to support that. the only reasonable thing to argue is that he would use it on rittenhouse. rittenhouse's mother has been there, ha

with respect to the need for self-defense. >> he can carry it for self-defense under the license to and from work and as you say can carry it for hunting, target practice and in your opinion you are just supposed to say you can carry a concealed gun around the streets were the town outside just for fun. i mean,, they are dangerous guns. what are you supposed to say? >> it's supposed to be what new york says that they give to lots of applicants and other counties which is an unrestricted license that basically means somebody that has demonstrated to the states that they are is good moral character and they have all the necessary training. >> you have to show you have a good moral character and you would like to carry a concealed weapon, which is a dangerous thing. no restrictions. certainly new york is entitled to have laws that say you can't have weapons in insensitive places. in addition to -- >> new york has those laws and we don't challenge them. what we are asking for is that the regime work the same way for self-defense as it does for hunting. when my clients go in and ask for

need to self-defense. >> he can he has his license and carried it for self-defense to and from work also hunting and target practice. not supposed to say you can carry a concealed gun so what is it supposed to say? >> what new york says that they give to applicants in other counties which is an unrestricted license that somebody who is demonstrated to the state to have a good moral character in all the necessary training. >> 50000 or 60000 is not enough. you have to show you have a good moral character and then if you want to carry a concealed weapon. >> new york is entitled to say you cannot have weapons and sensitive places. new york has those laws and we don't challenge those. what we are asking for is the regime works in the same way for self-defense as it does for hunting. when my clients go in and ask for a license for concealed carry have to tell the state to have the intent to go hunting and have to say a really good reason and i have to say i have a better reason than anybody else in my general community spirit the deference is a concealed weapon to go hunting you out with

that in the state of wisconsin which has a self-defense law. that is particularly favorable to a defendant. i think ultimately there were two key pieces of evidence in this case. one, this was a videotaped case. virtually all of the relevant conduct happened on videotape. and this was a split-second freeze-frame type of case. how close was rosenbaum to kyle rittenhouse when he fired and when you're in that close of a case it is hard to prove reasonable doubt. and when kyle rittenhouse took the stand, the prosecution did not make enough of a dent in kyle rittenhouse. they scored some points here and there but they did not fundamentally undermine his testimony and sara sidner said it perfectly, there is a back drop here, there is a political and racial back drop and we take the decisions away from a back drop and put them in a box and get a just verdict. >> do you believe the videotape was the most compelling part of this for the jurors? >> i think kyle rittenhouse's testimony was most compelling because the jury instructions were really centered

he acted in lawful self-defense.ortunately two people lost their lives, but the mainstream media totally villain eyes, demonized this guy. joe biden included, calling him a white supremacist in that ad, at least putting his face in and add that said white supremacy. apologize. come out and say i'm not going to comment on this and any aftermath, i think that he will in fact be exonerated in all of this, come out and apologize for what you said, because the commander in chief should not be villain eyes and a 17-year-old young man. >> sean: scott brown, jen psaki said i'm not going to speak right now to anything going on in the trial. and kayleigh is right and then she said what i can reiterate for you, the president's view, broadly speaking, vigilantes patrolling our communities with weapons, we shouldn't have opportunists corrupting peaceful protests, burning down the community. excuse me, they already weighed in and those comments themselves are biased joe biden already weighed in on an ongoing case when he referred

able to establish self-defense.ust think it's very telling that the prosecutors want to talk about a lot of demagoguery and a lot of as moss fu atmosph. >> still has pending charges. attorney richards knows that he has a fifth amendment right to not testify. >> your honor -- >> will let me ask you to step in the library again, please. >> your honor. >> 2, 1. wait for the door. one, it's not in evidence. two, if he wants to say he has a fifth amendment right, they can also grant him immunity. they are the only people who can. if they are going to say that i should have a surrebuttal to explain it to those people. they hold the key to mr. ziminski testifying and not testifying. >> i just heard two hours how terrible he was and now the defense wants to argue immunity. >> that's not. >> he still has a fifth amendment right. >> you know, the questioning -- the question the ziminski case has been here on a number of occasions and been a mutual request to adjoin the case of who is his lawyer? >> [inaudible] >> it's been re

the defense will follow that.nd wisconsin and what we could see in the coming hours. >> good afternoon. those deliberations should be getting here after the closing arguments wrap up. the judge did it dismiss a charge against kyle rittenhouse as a misdemeanor against the teenager. it was for possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor. it came down to the size of the weapon that was used in the shooting here in kenosha, wisconsin. the language in wisconsin does not actually ban a 17-year-old from karen rifle with a long barrel. rittenhouse was 17 when he shot three men killing to following the unrest of the police shooting of jacob blake. prosecutors replaying those moments here in wisconsin. kyle rittenhouse cannot claim the shootings were in self-defense. >> under wisconsin law, you are not allowed to run around and point you're gonna people. this is a provocation. this is what starts the incident. the defendant rushes in and immediately points a gun. as you see, mr. rosenbaum does not take kindly to people poin

defense programs and policy bill or the national defense authorization act. you'll hear members refer to it as ndaa. lawmakers advanced the defense bill wednesday night after democrats reached an agreement on china legislation. live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. dr. b, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. .o god our father, we wait to serve you as you desire. lord, make us alert to the needs of those you seek to touch, providing us with opportunities to transform hurting people. .use our lawmakers to do your will on earth as you empower them to be ambassadors of reconciliation, lord, give them such winsome dispositions that they will bless even those who are hard of heart and withered in spirit. .may our legislators comfort those who are brought low by sorrow and lift those who are bowed by life's burden. .and lord, during this season of thanksgiving, inspire each of us to be grateful every day. .we pray in your precious name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegi

here you have one defense team, then another defense team, then another defense team, all seated sideess like they did today, that witness is likely to be interviewed four different times, first by the state, then by one attorney from each of those defense teams. then there are the objections. often it could be one attorney, two attorneys, three attorneyso they may not object over the same thing. it forces the judge to send the jury out of the room while they try to settle all the disputes. it is extremely frustrating, anderson. >> martin savidge, appreciate it, thank you. >>> up next, break news on the ban on mask mandates by the texas governor. a new ruling from the federal judge, ahead. from the very first touch, pampers, the #1 pediatrician recommended brand, helps keep baby's skin drier and healthier. so every touch will protect like the first. pampers to make progress, we must keep taking steps forward. we believe the future of energy is lower carbon. and to get there, the world needs to reduce global emissions. at chevron, we're taking action. tying our executives' pay to lower

that was the defense for kyle rittenhouse talking. if this is one piece of evidence they get to study more than another piece of evidence, is that fair? the judge says yes, it may be a critical piece of evidence to them. the judge said yes. but the question is, should that have parameters around it? are they going to watch it a thousand times? but it will be in the courtroom, he says that much. then the question is, who is allowed to be in the courtroom while they watch? a lot still going down in the kyle rittenhouse trial. remember, it's a murder trial. august 15th, 2020. then 17-year-old kyle rittenhouse says in self-defense he opened fire with his ar-15-style rifle, killed two people, injured another. and wisconsin does have a law that says in self-defense, if you feel there is imminent danger or threat to your life, you can use deadly force. so that is the crux of the case. since yesterday afternoon, the jury has had this case in their hands, and they've been deliberating. but now suddenly a few minutes ago, 20 minutes ago, that c

here you have one defense team, then another defense team, then another defense team, all seated sideovides a witness like they did today, that witness is likely to be interviewed four different times, first by the state, then by one attorney from each of those defense teams. then there are the objections. often it could be one attorney, two attorneys, three attorneys standing up and objecting and they may not object over the same thing. it forces the judge to send the jury out of the room while they try to settle all the disputes. it is extremely frustrating, anderson. >> martin savidge, appreciate it, thank you. >>> up next, breaking news on the ban on mask mandates by the texas governor. a new ruling from the federal judge, ahead. [gaming sounds] [gaming sounds] [gaming sounds] just think, he'll be driving for real soon. every new chevy equinox comes standard with chevy safety assist, including automatic emergency braking. find new peace of mind. find new roads. chevrolet. if you're an adult newly diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer that's spread and tests positive for pd-l1

the essence of self-defense.ill boil down to whether he was on offense or defense. i think he was on defense. nancy: there is a big problem with gaige grosskruetz a testimony. because great on the stand but reality is, when he first -- he never mentioned he had a weapon pointed at rittenhouse. >> that is right. what affect it might have had on rittenhouse, as everyone is pointing out he has an i'm -- immature undeveloped mind, but he did procure the gun, he hid it and drove many miles to get to kenosha, he loved that gun. and what does that say about his own homicidal intent. that to me exists. nancy: whether or not the three victims, jury will be considering. rosenbaum, huber and grosskreutz, tomorrow it comes to an end, closing arguments commence then into the hands of the jury, right now we know national guard has been called. they will be circling the court of house in case there is a mistrial or an acquittal, our prayers for justice, let it roll down like a river. nancy grace. signing off. ♪ ♪ >> i'm chris w

defense policy often skipped over in favor of questions.e how many at 35's should we buy our shipsnd should we have n the navy fleet? until you answer the fundamental questions, answers the specific question will be of questionable value. the biden administration is presumably hard at a work writig national security strategy in the next national defense strategy. these strategies would help focus u.s. security apparatus and pressing threats facing the nation. this in particular was informed for efforts to shape, equipped from a training ' united states military. the 2018 national defense strategy was important signaling a sharp turn from the global war on terrorism to great power competition. although it came out three years agogo, u.s. military is still making that transition. there's no shortage of voices and opinions about what should be included in america's next national defense strategy. probably more worthy of consideration and bridge coping. the counter of the initiative, longtime think tank scholar, former deputy assistant secretar

the defense wants to make a point.of people over there doing stuff to cars and the defendant had no escape route. the crowd is already running away at this point. they've heard the first gunshot from za min ski and they're starting to scatter. but if you look on the video, there's a huge open space in that lot where the defendant could have circled back around, and he does after killing rosenbaum where he could have gotten away. he has to exhaust all reasonable means of escape before killing mr. rosenbaum. your honor, i do have some more video i want to play. i'm having technical problems i'd like to work on. i think this would be a good time to pause, if that's okay. >> okay. >> thank you. >> please don't talk about the case during the break. and we will begin again at 1:45 too soon? >> as they take a break, joining us now, nbc news shaq brewster and danny have a vaul us. >> we're hearing argument that is a little bit challenging, a little bit on o jexable. you hear the defense objecting different things. he mentioned

self defense. >> it was not self defense. you're protecting your home, your family. he in a dastardly way used the law that worked for him. there was no self defense. >> there were a range of emotions on display outside the courthouse last night. >> how many african-american people do you see get away with murder? >> i am here to celebrate kyle's innocence and affirmation of the thousand-year-old right of self defense. >> this is a dark day for america. we made vigilanteism legal. >> prescribe weighed in, releasing a statement saying while the verdict will leave many americans angry and concerned, myself included, we must acknowledge the jury has spoken. joining us, correspondent liz mclaughlin in kenosha. what's the atmosphere last night and this morning in kenosha? >> reporter: a few dozen protesters last night as we just heard from. calm now outside the courthouse. 500 national guard members are standing by, preparing for potential unrest. many expressing outrage that kyle rittenhouse could come

the defense has been arguing that this video certainly in terms of the self-defense, the proportionality of it, whether or not it's equal to what was going on, prosecution has been arguing it's not. so this is a key piece of evidence for the prosecution. the defense arguing, look, we got this high-definition video, so therefore we want it out. that's what they're arguing now, that there should be a mistrial over this. it's not the first one, the first mistrial they've asked for. it's probably the second or third, at least, at this point. the judge has yet to rule on anything. i was just in court. the judge is back on the bench listening to other matters. we don't know if we'll get a ruling on this mistrial request from the defense anytime soon. >> you'll keep us posted. appreciate it. >>> still to come, speaker nancy pelosi offering an update on when the house will vote on president biden's build back better bill. we expect to hear more from the speaker any moment. >> possible progress on a vote. >>> we are also keeping a very close eye on brunswick, georgia, where the man who shot ahmau

evidence from the defense. it comes as we enter day two of jury deliberations. we'll go to kenosha for the latest in just a moment. >>> also in a little more than an hour, president biden is set to leave for detroit where he's going to sell the newly-signed infrastructure bill. it's his larger agenda that's being picked apart right now on capitol hill. house democrats hoping to take action on his build back better agenda. at some point this week. get this. the bill going through a rebranding of sorts to combat a major concern. inflation. but will that be enough to get it over the finish line? another house bill that's getting a lot of attention on this wednesday morning. republican congresswoman nancy mace of south carolina wants to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level. in a few moments, i'll talk to the congresswoman about her bill and the pushback she's already starting to get from her state's own gop chair. >>> plus a pandemic progress report from the white house co-void response team. they're holdin

the defense began presenting their case today arguing those men acted in self-defense when they shot and killed arbery. cnn's martin savidge is live in brunswick with more on that. what's happening there? >> reporter: there's been a bit of a delay when it comes to the defense starting to make its presentation. what's happening before the jury is brought in has been arguments by the defense team for directed verdicts. this is essentially where the defense will get up and say, hey, look, the state did not make the case on the various charges that have been made against these defendants and, thereby, judge, we're asking you to acquit them on charges one, two, three, four, whatever. that's the example. that argument was supposed to take an hour. it's taken two hours. this is a clear example of what happens when you have three defense teams instead of just one and how it complicates things, and going forward, how it could continue to complicate this case. there's still evidence issues they've got to debate before they bring the jury in. so again, some delays. one of the key questions is w

>> well, the defense laid out a good defense in the past few days. is the defendant in fear of being struck in a dangerous way? is his life at risk? but you need to look at the total circumstances in a case. we have a 17-year-old boy going to a riot, to a dangerous environment, with a rifle. how does that sit with the jury? the judge will instruct the jury to use their common sense, their everyday knowledge, to try to analyze what took place. one of the defendants, the one that was struck by him and was not killed, he said he pointed his gun at the defendant. i think this judge at the end of the case may direct the verdict on some of these charges. some of these charges are not going to go to the jury. some of them are just going to be outright lost. what happens is the prosecutor has a big balloon at the beginning of the case and the defense punches holes in that balloon as the case proceeds. unfortunately in this case, there's a political environment, there's a toxic environment in this case. some of the extreme left and some of the extreme right a

defense. they say he was being chased. they say that he was being threatened. he feared for his life, and his safety, and he was simply responding to the threat. kyle rittenhouse took the stand in the trial. there was the moment where he broke down on the stand, and that became somewhat of a controversial moment. >> all right, shaq. >> let's listen to the judge. >> i think we're hearing something. >> there can't be any reaction at all, no matter how strongly you may feel. and it's understood that many people do have strong feelings, but we can't permit any kind of a reaction to the verdict, and as you can see, there's quite a bit of law enforcement here, and you will be whisked out of here if there is any. so be aware. >> hello? >> come now, please? >> yes. >> thank you. >> shaq, when you go back and we know the only -- you said they asked for more video to see that. and then you look at that, i mean, it impacts every one of the counts that they are debating. so we can't really even say oh, th

the defense lawyer got out with the defense lawyer needed to get out. but it wasn't stylistically as good. what the lawyers say in opening and closings is not evidence. the evidence is what came out on the witness stand. i would like to see the defense do a little bit more with what they had, because they had a lot to work with. one thing he did very well was talking about the rush to judgment. as a homicide prosecutor, myself, i've never charged so quickly had they didn't have all the evidence, the autopsies hadn't been concluded, witness interviews hadn't been done and he used that, we know this as prosecutors, don't give the defense an opportunity to use a rush to judgment as a reason for why the charges were brought. so he was pretty effective in that aspect. >> bob, let's talk about the law here. a key argument is this question of self-defense. that is the central argument of his defense attorneys, the prosecution in the closing arguments really hammering home this idea you can't hide behind self-defense if you created the dan danger. if you put yo

if it is self-defense, it is self-defense.hat kid handled that gun very well as far as i'm concerned. he must have already had training because he did great. i don't mean that in the wrong kind of way. also, although leaders like nadler, all of them, it is like they wanted to incite the riots in the cities and have everything torn apart. the only reason it did not happen last night is because everybody with common sense. those people that did march know it was self-defense. luckily it was all on tape and they saw it. everything went well. thank god nobody rioted. it was a full-blown riot. it was not peaceful protesters. host: mark from carlisle, pennsylvania. caller: good morning, jesse. great topic. great comments. i agree with james and kevin for sure, and the last guy that called. let's get the facts out. jacob blake had a warrant, knife. he is trying to steal his car. his girlfriend posey car. --'earl friends -- his girlfriend's car. this was not a peaceful protest. these politicians like the last guy just said that her tr

you have a right to self-defense. if you feel three pillars that you're in med fear of death or bodily injury, you can stopped and it has to be commence rat with the situation involved. if you provoked it and were the initial aggressor and in the opening statement let's be mindful of what the prosecution was doing. he said when he raised the rifle, provocation, to your point he was far away. does that go to renal when you're shooting your partner or anybody else? they are saying aren't i hours brought on these things because he was a danger. if it's shown he act the unbelievably an if the shooting was disproportionate to the threat that was exposed he loses the privilege of self-defense. for the prosecution if they can win this argument of provocation, that voids the notion of self-defense and gets them a convic. i think they have a f-haddy task in doing it, but they are focused very carefully on that issue and hoping as a prosecutor we hope the dish -- i'm not going to give the defendant the benefit. >> they, the jur

well funded defense.d two mock juries. they had jury consultants. they had enough money to really work hard to build rittenhouse's case, and his defense, unlike so many other people in the united states. but it does weigh heavy for some people who think of a guy going to a protest with an ar-15, he's possibly going out there to cause trouble, and then he uses self-defense case, so a lot of people don't feel solid about it, and don't feel good about it, but unfortunately, that's the way the law works in this one. >> it's legal. i mean, that's what the jury decided and that's what the law in wisconsin says. so on the flip side, elie, assess for us the prosecution's performance. >> i think there are fair criticisms of the prosecutor here. first of all, they had a difficult factual scenario, for reasons eric just laid out, and we have been talking about throughout the hour. that said, they had several missteps, strategic and legal. >> like what. >> the defense lawyer highlighted some of them. they oversold th

the defendant took the stand right away in the defense there. one of the first things they did is travis mcmichael said he assumed that the man he saw on the video he saw in this surveillance video was ahmaud arbery. he assumed that arbery had committed some kind of a legal act. listen to this. >> the guy that has been breaking in, just ran down the road. something happened. i thought it was the same individual i saw on the 11th. i thought it was reasonably, okay, there's something to this. this guy may have just ran by. matt may have seen him, caught him stealing something. >> so what was the defense strategy there, and did it work? >> so the defendants have a fundamental problem in this case, which is this. why did they pursue ahmaud arbery? the prosecution theory is they saw this young black man jogging in the neighborhood and they set out to harm him. a georgia law, citizens arrest law. this is an old law from the civil war era, deeply racist roots. it was repealed earlier this year as a result of the ahmaud arbery killing. however, what i t