S5219 - State's OWN Witnesses BACKFIRE On DA PROVING Kyle Rittenhouse Acted In Self Defense
State's OWN Witnesses BACKFIRE On DA PROVING Kyle Rittenhouse Acted In Self Defense. Two witnesses for the state definitely proved that Kyle Rittenhouse was defending himself.
Democrats and the media have been so tribalist about this they refuse to accept the truth of what happened in Kenosha.
Moderates and Republicans once again seem to better understand reality and that the rittenhouse trial is going to end in an acquittal
#KyleRittenhouse
#BLMRiots
#Antifa
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In our first story, the state's own witnesses in the Kyle Rittenhouse case have testified that Kyle Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense.
Even going as far to say that one of the guys who got shot threatened to kill Kyle Rittenhouse.
This is crazy.
I don't even know how we're still having a trial at this point.
Kyle Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense.
In our next story, Democrats need to have a reckoning, so saith CNN.
They keep pushing policies that Americans hate, but they're not backing down.
Cenk Uygur says, no, no, I refuse to accept it, and then criticizes Tulsi Gabbard.
And in our last story, did Alec Baldwin intentionally kill that woman?
New evidence suggests either sabotage or malfeasance.
I'm not going to say.
I think we all made too many assumptions.
Alec Baldwin pointed that gun, maybe we should start asking the more serious and obvious questions.
Now before we get started, leave us a good review and give us five stars.
Now let's get into that first story.
We know him.
We love him.
And I gotta say, after watching what happened yesterday, if this trial is not already over, if the jury hasn't already figured this out, I would be shocked.
The state's own witnesses have stated that Rosenbaum said to them and their group, including Kyle Rittenhouse, if I catch you tonight, I will kill you.
A new report shows that Kyle Rittenhouse was yelling friendly as he was being chased.
More evidence came out in trial about the gunshot being fired before Rittenhouse turned around, and we have this story from legal insurrection trainwreck.
Rittenhouse prosecution implodes with state witness Richard McGinnis of the Daily Caller.
This is not supposed to be how the direct examination of your own witness is done, my friends.
It is clear We all knew this.
I interviewed Richie.
We had him on TimCast IRL with several other people who broke down exactly what happened that night with Kyle Redknaus.
Clear-cut case of self-defense.
You want to criticize him?
By all means.
Maybe he shouldn't have gone out there with that weapon.
You want to criticize him and say he broke the law by having the weapon in the first place?
That is a charge he is facing.
But when it comes to the death of these three individuals, as tragic and awful as it is, I know a lot of people like posting memes and laughing about it.
I don't like celebrating death.
I don't care who it is.
This is- this is crazy.
It was self-defense.
I mean, they even are talking- they're arguing.
They're like, well, it's clear that, you know, this Huber guy hit Rittenhouse with a skateboard.
Like, it's not even- it's not- it's not even being contested that he was lying on the ground and a dude ran up and hit him with the skateboard and then tried grabbing the weapon.
You had the individuals in question saying, according to the... I gotta stress this point.
The state brought in a witness.
Not the defense.
The state did, saying, this guy is gonna prove our case.
And then the witness was like, the man threatened to kill Kyle Rittenhouse.
What?
We didn't even know that!
When we've been talking about this throughout the past year, we watched the videos, and even, I love shouting you out, Destiny.
Destiny, a leftist commentator, said it was the clearest cut case of self-defense he had ever seen.
Now we're learning that Rittenhouse was yelling, friendly, and a guy chasing him had already threatened to end his life.
I don't understand what we're still doing here.
Now here's where it gets crazier.
The judge actually stopped proceedings to rag on the media.
The media knows.
Okay, so these people are Democrat activists.
They hate Kyle Rittenhouse.
They will not accept that they're wrong about this.
And they know.
They know they're wrong.
But they can't say it publicly.
So the only thing they can do is criticize the judge.
The judge gets pissed and starts saying, what are these people talking about?
We're doing everything right here.
To the point where two jurors have now been dismissed.
This, my friends, I cannot believe is even going to trial.
I think most of you said it from the get-go.
How could this even be criminally prosecuted?
We've all seen endless amounts of videos about this.
And now here we go.
Well, I can't fault the state for trying.
It's their job.
But part of me thinks the states, the prosecutors, are actually just giving up.
Actually, it seems more like they're trying as hard as they can, but they know they have no case.
Now, questions still remain.
Will the jury stand up based on what they're seeing and say, it's self-defense?
Clearly.
Now Kyle Rittenhouse may still get in trouble on that gun charge.
That's it.
And there may be reckless endangerment.
I'm not convinced he walks away, but I'll tell you this.
I thought for a while that Rittenhouse was going to get life, because I thought the jury would bend over backwards, terrified of the mob.
But now it's winter.
There's no riots.
So we'll see.
It's starting to look like Rittenhouse is going to walk.
He might get a slap on the wrist conviction of something, but in the end, if the jury feels like this young Kyle Rittenhouse had to be out there or was justified in being out there during the riots because he wanted to protect his community, this kid's not going to get in trouble.
Let's just jump to these stories.
I gotta give a shout out to Andrew Branca.
This is all his legal analysis and breakdowns, and he does a fantastic job.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com.
Become a member to help support all of the work we do here at TimCast.com.
For the past week, TimCast IRL has been on hiatus, which really, really hurts us.
But thanks to the fact that you guys are members of the website, We don't gotta worry about anything.
And the show's gonna be back Monday like normal.
Everybody is... I'm happy to say everybody has tested... Well, okay, that's not true.
Everybody at the Castle has tested negative.
We'll see what ends up happening on Monday.
But we should be able to just resume like normal.
And we got a big announcement.
I won't say too much, but Austin...
We will be there soon.
So become a member at TimCast.com, smash the like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends.
Let's get started with this first blip, this little little blip from legal insurrection.
Train wreck. Rittenhouse prosecution implodes with state witness Richard McInnes of The Daily
Caller. I know Richie. I was I was watching Richie and I'm like, yeah, you go, Richie,
because I know him personally and I just want him to go out there on to tell the truth. Right.
He came on our show, he told us exactly what went down, he should tell them exactly what went down, and he did, and the defense wasn't too happy, the prosecution wasn't too happy, but check this out.
Branca writes, I believe this is Andrew Branca.
I'll cover all of this in greater detail later.
Um, but couldn't resist getting this out to you promptly.
The direct questioning of state witness, he emphasizes state, by A.D.A.
Binger was an absolute train wreck for the prosecution.
And of course, the jury watched it all happen in real time.
To provide some context, for more than 12 minutes, A.D.A.
Binger tried to get McGinnis to testify that Rosenbaum was already falling to the ground when Rittenhouse began shooting him.
In other words, That Rittenhouse simply executed Rosenbaum by shooting him in the back when he was helplessly falling.
The actual exchange is in the video so you can watch for yourself, but a reasonable paraphrase would go something like this.
Binger.
So Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum in the back as he was falling, correct?
McInnes, no.
Rittenhouse didn't fire until Rosenbaum charged and lunged at him.
Binger, the ADA.
So we shot him as he was falling.
McInnes, no, not falling, lunging.
So you're saying he shot him while he was falling?
No, that's not my testimony.
Lunging.
This is not how it's supposed to be done, folks.
So he then says he's going to get the full analysis up, but we got the full analysis.
Look at this.
Rittenhouse trial, day three.
State's own witness damaged prosecution.
Reinforced self-defense narrative.
I was watching this happen live, and my jaw hits the desk when he was like, this is crazy.
He's like, uh, Rosenbaum says, if, tonight, if I catch you, I will kill you.
And then the prosecutor's like, but he didn't say, he said it to you, not to Kyle Rittenhouse.
And then the dude, Ryan Balch, goes, Rittenhouse was standing right there.
He said it to all of us.
Like, you mean to tell me the prosecution's own witness, they knew this.
They knew the guy threatened the life of Kyle Rittenhouse.
They knew all of that.
And they still went forward with charges.
This is a sham.
Check this out from Legal Insurrection.
He says, welcome to today's Law of Self-Defense ongoing coverage of the Reinaus trial.
This is Andrew Branca who is writing.
He writes, this third day of trial was perhaps the worst yet for ADA Thomas Binger's efforts to have Kyle Reinaus convicted and sentenced to life in prison for having shot three men, two fatally.
He says, in Kenosha, after Jacob Blake writes, he says, that's really saying something because it's not like the prosecution outperformed in the first two days of the trial.
Indeed, coming into today, the state had yet to present any evidence that was substantively inconsistent with Kyle's legal defense of self-defense.
None!
This is the crazy thing.
The prosecutor is bringing in witnesses that are effectively helping Kyle Rittenhouse.
It's almost like the prosecutor is tossing this.
It's on purpose.
Let's not ignore that possibility.
The detective investigating had been on the force for less than two years before he was given the highest profile case of their department.
And now the prosecutor is bringing in witnesses that are hurting the prosecution's case.
I think they know it's wrong to bring these charges against Kyle Rittenhouse.
I think there's a strong possibility they're throwing this on purpose.
He writes, today was even worse.
Two of the state's own witnesses, and arguably their star witness, with the greatest immediate personal knowledge of the events surrounding the shootings, journalist Richard McInnes, we call him Richie, who was filming and interviewing Kyle that night, and former army infantryman Ryan Belch, who was also armed with Kyle that night, provided lengthy testimony that not only failed to assist the state's efforts to attack Kyle's claim of self-defense, Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
unidentified
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms 4 America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
Juror number seven dismissed for offensive Jacob Blake joke.
I'm not going to read the joke.
We're going to move on.
But this, I think, goes to show the judge is taking this seriously and being fair.
The defense was trying to get the reckless endangerment charge looked at, saying that if Kyle was acting in self-defense, there's no reckless endangerment.
And the judge was like, that's for the jury to decide.
The judge isn't just letting Kyle walk on this one.
I'm sure the left will claim that because they're going to lose, and they probably know they're going to lose.
Here we go.
How state witnesses testify in a trial of legal merit.
Andrew says, before I dive into the individual testimony of state witness Richie McGinnis, a videographer for The Daily Caller and Ryan Belch, he says, it's worth reminding ourselves what the testimony ought to have looked like had this been a normal criminal prosecution based on actual legal merit.
As two state witnesses, not defense witnesses, both McGinnis and Belch would be expected to provide testimony that contributed to the prosecution's narrative of guilt and undermine the defendant's legal defenses.
In this case, that largely boils down to attacking and destroying Kyle's legal defense of self-defense, at least with respect to all the felony use of force and reckless endangerment charges in the case.
Cal Rittenhouse is presumed innocent, and that means that his shooting of the three men and the reasonableness of his conduct otherwise, the night of August 25th, is presumed to be justified as lawful self-defense, unless the state can disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now, the prosecution doesn't have to disprove Kyle's claim of self-defense in its entirety.
The prosecution merely needs to disprove any one of the four elements that make up the claim of self-defense.
These four elements are cumulative, meaning every one of the four is required.
So, if even a single one is disproven beyond a reasonable doubt, Kyle's legal justification of self-defense collapses entirely.
To those who are new to the self-defense law, I would like a quick refresh on the concepts of the elements of self-defense here.
The four elements.
Innocence.
The state might attempt to prove that it was Kyle who was the initial unlawful aggressor in any of the confrontations he was in that night.
Imminence.
The state might attempt to prove that the attacks Kyle was defending himself against were neither actually in progress or immediately about to occur.
Proportionality, number three.
The state might attempt to prove the attacks on Kyle did not present as apparently deadly force in nature, readily capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.
Reasonableness.
The state might attempt to prove either that Kyle lacked a genuine belief in the need to act in self-defense, or that his belief was irrational and not objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
And of course, whichever element or elements the state sought to target in its attacks on Kyle's claim of self-defense, it wouldn't need to disprove beyond any reasonable doubt.
This is necessarily the mission of Assistant DA Binger in the prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse, and how that mission would be accomplished.
And it needs to be accomplished during the state's presentation of evidence.
Obviously, after the state has rested and the defense gets its turn, it's not as if the attack by the defense is going to make the state's narrative stronger.
So, as I listen to the state present its witness and subject them to direct examination or questioning, what I am looking for is the building out of that narrative of guilt, the destruction of self-defense, the substantive attack on one or more of those elements.
What is this testimony, this line of argument attacking exactly?
Innocence, imminence, proportionality, or reasonableness?
That's what really matters.
Any testimony or argument that doesn't have one of those elements as its targets, that does not substantively undermine and disprove one of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt, is nothing but wasted effort and time.
This is good, my friends.
You ready?
What I saw over the first two days of this trial was a bunch of testimony that contributed nothing substantively to degrading any of those four elements.
And thus nothing to disprove Kyle Ritnas' claim of self-defense.
There was simply no substantive evidence that undermined any of those four elements of Kyle's self-defense claim.
What I saw from the state's witness today, however, was far worse.
Not only did their testimony, the testimony which is supposed to be the building blocks for the destruction of the claim of self-defense, not undermine Kyle's self-defense.
Much of today's testimony actually strengthened Kyle's claim of self-defense.
And perhaps even worse, ADA Binger's attempts to badger the witness testimony into something that might, in one of the wildest imaginings, resemble a tool to bludgeon self-defense, resulted only in him appearing intellectually desperate.
And in his witness becoming visibly resistant to his badgering.
In the case of Balch in particular, ADA Binger was even brought to the extremity of suggesting to the jury that Balch, Binger's own witness, whom Binger himself had to call to the stand to testify, was nothing more than a petty liar.
Oh, man!
This is crazy!
State witness Richard McGinnis resists hostile badgering.
Check this out.
Richie is a videographer who works in support of the Daily Caller news organization.
We all know Richie.
You've seen him on TimCast IRL.
In fact, one of our most viewed videos on IRL is the witness testimony of Richie McGinnis.
And we asked him what he thought, and he said, look, I'll tell you exactly what happened, but I'm not going to give you my opinions.
Okay.
That video's got over a million views.
So we know we respect Richie.
He's not here for political reasons.
Here's what he says.
This is his profession, and he has frequently over the years engaged his craft in the midst of violent protests.
That's Richie.
This was precisely what McGinnis was doing in Kenosha on the night of August 25th, having flown in town for the purpose of, you know, documenting.
As it happened, also captured by McGinnis was Ryan Belch, the second star state witness, who was working alongside Kyle.
Much of McGinnis' testimony centered around video he had made while following Kyle and Belch around Kenosha that night.
Also important was McGinnis' presence in close proximity to Kyle when Rosenbaum launched his ill-fated attack on the 17-year-old.
Richie was right there.
After the shots were fired, Richie rendered aid to this man.
Because of the importance of the McGuinness video of Kyle and Belch, it was played repeatedly and at length by ADA Binger.
But to what purpose?
I could not imagine.
Because it did nothing to further the state's core mission of disproving self-defense.
Repeatedly, we see Kyle walking down the street alongside Belch with neither man presenting in a threatening manner in the slightest.
To the contrary, they are each continually calling out to see if others, whether their own colleagues or protesters alike, are in need of medical attention.
Amazing.
I can't believe it.
I think Kyle might walk.
I think Kyle Rittenhouse might walk.
Kyle's response, I love you too ma'am. When Balch recounted this event from the witness stand,
someone in the courtroom actually laughed out loud. I can't believe it. I think Kyle might walk.
I think Kyle Rittenhouse might walk. This is nuts. At one point in the McGuinness video,
we see Kyle and Balch encounter a group of punk rockers with fire extinguishers
who are acting as a fire brigade. And one of the reports having been shot.
Kyle immediately attempts to offer medical care, only to discover the person had been shot with a rubber bullet with no great effect.
Kyle, Balch, and the punk rockers end up laughing and joking about the whole affair, with everyone being very friendly.
A few moments later, with McInnes recording beside him, they come across a group of four young black men, and the encounter's quite different.
The group immediately displays hostility towards Kyle and McInnes.
Kyle, seeing this, does not engage or threaten in any way.
Instead, he simply turns and walks away, calling out once again for anyone who might be in need of medical care.
Not only was he not engaging in acts of violence, he was trying to avoid conflict.
I hope the jury gets this.
Kyle Rittenhouse was seeking to avoid conflict, render medical aid, and fled when he was attacked.
ADABinger noted that McGinnis had used the word menacing when he spoke in an interview after Kyle's shootings, and repeatedly attempted to badger McGinnis into testifying that he meant this term to apply to Kyle himself.
That McGinnis found Kyle to be personally menacing.
First, this is hardly credible.
Given that McGinnis chose to follow around the armed Kyle in Belch for quite some time, he didn't do the same, for example, with the actual menacing group of black men he had encountered.
Second, McInnes consistently responded to Binger's badgering suggestions by making clear that the word menacing was intended as a description of the circumstances generally, as in any potentially violent protest environment, not of Kyle personally.
In other words, Binger wanted McInnes to testify that he was using menacing to refer to Kyle as threatening.
Instead, McInnes made clear he was using menacing to mean simply the increased risk of being in an environment where guns were being carried around by people.
Really, If you can't watch all of this, you really should.
If you can't, you know, I'll make these videos, but watching Richie McInnes, and I was just like, dude, Richie wasn't having it.
He wasn't there to defend Kyle.
He wasn't there to attack Kyle.
But it's clear that this guy, telling the truth, self-defense.
He says it was frankly all nonsense.
If McGinnis had seen such a combination before, presumably Binger would have continued to narrow down the characteristics.
We get it, we get it.
At some point, McGinnis and Kyle become somewhat separated.
McGinnis saw the now familiar Kyle run with the fire extinguisher and decided to see what was going on.
As it happens, Kyle was running down Sheridan to put out a fire, reportedly occurring in a CarSource parking lot down the street.
Isn't this amazing?
Joshua Zeminsky was carrying a Glock pistol, which he would shortly fire into the air, triggering subsequent events resulting in the death of Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, and maiming of Gage Grosskreutz.
As Kyle reached the edge of CarSource, Rosenbaum concealed himself among four cars, then emerged behind Kyle and initiated his charge of Kyle.
McGuinness was still running down Sheridan to catch up with Kyle, and so ended up behind Rosenbaum as events proceeded.
Also roughly behind Kyle and Rosenbaum was Joshua Zeminski, who was on the sidewalk near the group of four cars that Rosenbaum had been hiding in.
As Rosenbaum chased the isolated Kyle across the lot, Zeminski raised his pistol and fired a shot in the air.
The fleeing Kyle, hearing the shot behind him, turned to look in that direction and saw Rosenbaum charging him, screaming F you at the top of his lungs.
Much of this was confirmed both by the observational testimony of McInnes, as well as by various video recordings, including the FBI infrared video recording.
The events are indisputable.
McGinnis personally observed the charge of Rosenbaum on Kyle and described the attack in some great detail.
Rosenbaum was in a hunched forward running position, as one would be running as fast as one could.
Kyle was desperately fleeing towards the far side of the car source and was shouting friendly, friendly, friendly while doing so.
These cries of friendly did not dissuade Rosenbaum.
When Kyle turned slightly back towards Rosenbaum, even as Kyle continued to retreat, placing his rifle well within Rosenbaum's view, the sight of the rifle did not dissuade Rosenbaum's charge.
Indeed, Rosenbaum would charge until he was close enough to lunge with outstretched arms for possession and control of Kyle's rifle.
Kyle still holding his rifle at low ready, approximately at a 45 degree angle to the ground.
McGinnis actually stood from his witness chair to demonstrate these aggressive attacking motions by Rosenbaum, and he did so at the request of A.D.K.
Binger.
I'm sorry, my friends.
The prosecution's throwing it.
The prosecution wants Rittenhouse to walk.
That's all—that's what I can see here.
I can't go through all of the details.
I think you know a lot of the details.
So the main takeaway from all of this is that not just with McInnes, but with Balch as well, the state has crippled their own trial.
State witness Ryan Balch shows Rosenbaum as a violent lunatic, threatening to kill.
Let me see if I can just pull this up.
And here we go.
Balch testified that Rosenbaum came right up to the pair, got right in my face, yelling and screaming, and murderously pledged, quote, if I catch any of you guys alone tonight, I'm going to effing kill you.
Worth recalling, I think, that this murderous threat from a hyper-aggressive and patently violent Rosenbaum came only a short time before Kyle, running for his life, would hear a gunshot behind him.
A short while.
So this guy says it, shortly after he's chasing Rittenhouse, who's yelling friendly, who hears a gunshot.
Self-defense!
This is nuts!
I can't believe the state brought these individuals in.
Now, there's a lot of other things I really need to get to and we don't have too much time.
Check this out.
A second juror was dismissed in the Rittenhouse trial.
This is big.
They say the latest juror dismissal leaves the panel with 18 total jurors, 8 men and 10 women.
The pregnant juror appeared Friday in the jury box wearing a blue face mask.
Uh, Judge Bruce Schroeder briefly questioned her before dismissing her.
Schroeder later told the remaining jurors that panel member 27 was experiencing some mild discomfort.
She's pregnant and requested to be dismissed and I granted the request with the consent of attorneys.
So this one had nothing to do with joke or political opinions or anything like that.
This was basically him just saying, okay, we're going to let one of the jurors take off and the jury will be narrowed to 12 once deliberations begin, according to the judge.
The jury was selected in a single day without the use of a preliminary questionnaire, so.
They still have more than enough jurors for this, but that is two jurors.
The first juror who was removed made an off-color joke about Jacob Blake, which resulted in them saying, we don't want any potential for bias, so you can leave.
Hey, there's one way to get removed from a jury trial.
Apparently, the joke he made was mocking Jacob Blake, so probably would have voted in favor of Kyle Rittenhouse.
So, good, good.
Let's have the judge do the right thing and treat this respectfully.
I gotta bring this up.
This is important.
Kyle Rittenhouse judge stops proceedings, fumes about media criticism.
The establishment media knows they're losing.
They know the story is a lie.
They know Kyle Rittenhouse maybe shouldn't have been there.
Maybe.
But this was self-defense.
The only thing they can do is blame the judge and say he's the one.
Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating And affecting the 2024 presidential election.
We do all that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
The judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial went on a prolonged rant against media criticism of the case Wednesday, saying he has followed the law and any assertions otherwise could be detrimental to the community.
Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder began his unusual soliloquy by referencing a recent media report that called the case the most divisive trial in the country.
Schroeder, the longest-serving circuit judge in Wisconsin, has frequently criticized media during the case, but he rarely acknowledges the trial's larger significance.
Anything that undermines public confidence in what happens here is very important.
It is important for this town.
It's important for this country to have people have confidence in the result of this trial, whatever it is.
And I don't care what it is, but people have to be confident.
Schroeder made the comments outside the jury's presence after the defense and prosecutors clashed over a video of the August 2020 unrest being played for the jury.
As the two sides sparred, ADA binger referenced Schroeder's pretrial ruling, allowing Rittenhouse's team to present evidence suggesting the men Rittenhouse shot participated in looting, rioting, and arson that night.
The mention seemed to upset Schroeder, who began talking about media coverage of that decision.
The judge made national headlines regarding that ruling, and another that barred the men Rittenhouse shot from being called victims.
The judge received dozens of angry emails about the decisions, according to court records.
There are people in the media, on reputable sites, that are saying things that are totally bizarre, Schroeder said.
The judge specifically referenced a CNN report in which two legal analysts questioned the ruling, including one who described it as incomprehensible.
According to CNN.com legal analyst Areva Martin made the comment, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, whom Schroeder specifically singled out, called it a really unnecessary and unfortunate beginning to this really important case.
That's our rule, Schroeder said.
It's the law.
The judge also criticized media accounts that correctly referenced that he had been reversed in a murder trial that resulted in a life sentence.
Schroeder said he was reversed in the 2008 case, followed the appellate court's instruction on retrial, and then was vindicated when he was reversed again.
I was right, he said.
I gotta tell you, I think the judge is doing a really great job.
The judge has shown to be impartial, that not everything will go the defense's way, and the ruling on the victim, on saying the word victim, is literally, it makes sense.
Here, the judge said you can't refer to the men who lost their lives as victims.
Why?
At heart in this trial is whether or not they are victims.
Kyle Rittenhouse, was he defending himself from aggressors who were breaking the law, or did he attack people and be the aggressor?
If it was self-defense, these men were not victims.
So, if the prosecutor comes out and calls these people victims the entire time, they are basically asserting Kyle Rittenhouse was guilty from the get-go.
The judge says you can't do that.
Now, why can you call them looters, riners, and arsonists?
Because that is what they are seen doing.
We need to prove to the jury, the defense does, that these people were breaking the law, we've seen it on video, and the judge says if they're on video and that's the determination that they're rioting and looting, so be it.
And then the jury can decide whether or not Rittenhouse was defending himself from them.
The left wants it to be.
That this kid is a far-right, evil guy who brought a gun across state lines to hunt down innocent protesters?
Not true.
Not true in the slightest.
Now, whether or not he was justified in self-defense will be up to the jury.
Whether or not he was going there to cause harm is not in dispute.
There's video evidence.
There are witnesses.
There are facts.
He didn't bring guns across state lines.
He worked in Kenosha.
He lived about 20 miles away.
These are the things the left has been lying about.
Binger tried to steer the conversation back to the issue being debated, telling the judge she
doesn't pay attention to Tubin or any other media commentary on the case. It is of no concern to me,
Binger said. The judge then took a break and stepped off the bench. There was no mention
of the media when he returned. They're going to say Rittenhouse, and we get the details on
Rittenhouse and all the rest. So we are now in day four.
It's currently ongoing, and there's already some interesting commentary when it comes to one witness.
Let me try and get this woman's name.
Okay, so I don't think we have the... It updates periodically, but there was one witness they brought in, and Andrew Branca said he has no idea why they brought this one witness on to testify.
Because she didn't have any knowledge of the case, and it seemed to be a waste of the court's time.
I gotta tell you, man.
I think, based on what we're hearing today, what we heard yesterday... Right now, I'm just gonna walk this one out.
This is from just about an hour ago, an hour before recording this video.
Kyle Rittenhouse Trial.
Witness says Mannshot was acting belligerently.
Jason Lukowski and Joseph Rosenbaum asked very bluntly to shoot him.
What are we doing here?
The state has no case.
The state has been trying to bring people on and they can't do anything to undermine Rittenhouse.
They tried.
So look, I said maybe they're throwing it, but look, look, look.
In the testimony of McGinnis, the prosecutor's trying to get Richie to say he was falling, right?
He plays a clip from Tucker Carlson where Richie was like, so then as he's falling, you know, so then he's falling forward and then Rittenhouse is shooting.
And so he's like, see?
You said he was falling.
And Richie's like, well, let me clarify.
He was lunging forward when the shot started.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, but you said he was falling.
And Richie's like, but I'm clarifying.
It was amazing how the prosecutor was desperately trying to get Richie to say, he was falling, right?
He was falling.
Is the best you can do, ADA binger, is pull up a Tucker Carlson clip of the witness and then try and claim the witness's testimony is based on not being under oath and going on TV?
The dude, Richie, is sitting in front of you right now under oath.
So what he says is what happened.
Oh, it's amazing!
I think we're going to see Kyle Rittenhouse walk.
I think we are going to see Kyle Rittenhouse walk.
Maybe some minor charges.
Maybe the riots end up breaking out after all.
It's cold out though, so we will see.
The state has flubbed this beyond all recognition.
Now, it's still relatively early, I suppose, but when the state's own witnesses are basically saying two very big things.
One, that this guy was lunging at Rittenhouse.
Two, that this guy threatened to kill Kyle Rittenhouse.
I just, what?
What is this?
What is going on?
Crazy, huh?
We'll see.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up Monday, I guess, because no IRL tonight.
You can check out youtube.com slash castcastle for the vlog, which has been slow going because everyone has been sick, but we're all basically negative now.
There's, you know, one or two people who aren't here, who don't work here, who are sick, but I think we're all basically good and ready to go.
So, thanks for the support, everybody.
Thanks for checking out this video.
Share it with your friends, and I'll see y'all next time.
A long time ago, I was talking with some friends about physics and unified theories, the universe, all that really crazy trippy stuff people like to talk about on a, you know, maybe it's a Friday night and everyone's chilling inside, just relaxing, we're teenagers.
And I was told that what we know about M-Theory and String Theory may all be wrong.
It could all be wrong.
And this was from a friend whose dad was actually a physicist.
And he was like, basically what his dad told him is, what you got to be careful for when it comes to all this stuff are people who have dedicated themselves, their lives to some idea.
Because when it turns out that idea is wrong, they cannot give it up.
If you dedicate 10 years of your life to the pursuit of some idea that later turns out to be wrong, you wasted those 10 years.
People can't let that happen.
Their whole life would crumble all around them.
So naturally, they get defensive.
They get angry.
And I think we're starting to see that now.
In this article from CNN, well, they're putting it rather bluntly.
Democrats need a reckoning after misjudging the nation's mood.
Oh, you think?
All right.
Well, good on Stephen Collinson for CNN writing this analysis because it's true and correct.
The resounding and just the disaster the Democrats faced in these past elections.
It's a red flag.
It's a warning flare.
People don't like critical race theory.
They don't like the applied principles of critical race theory.
It was so bad.
The Democrats are spiraling and it's so bad that a trucker in New Jersey Who spent only $153 on his campaign has won.
Now, of course, his opponent, the Democrat, is saying, it's not over yet!
But he's down by like 2,000 votes.
This is a state Senate seat.
This Trucker guy was like, I'm not having it, and he ran.
And that was all it took for people to be like, I ain't voting Democrat.
Do you think the Democrats will wake up?
No.
And that's why I told you that story.
Because they've dedicated too much of their lives to critical race theory.
A psychotic, a deranged, and racist ideology.
Oh, they say things like, critical race theory is simply the legal analysis of the intersection of race and the law, and that's just not true.
What we're really talking about with critical race theory is the view from Marxist ideology of critical theory of oppressed versus oppressor.
What Kimberlé Crenshaw wrote in her book was that Marx didn't understand racial dynamics in the United States, and while in Europe and Eastern Europe you might be able to say that a rich person is the oppressor and a poor person is the oppressed, thus you get that Marxist ideology, in America race plays a bigger role, meaning that whiteness is like property, and from this you get all of these offshoots.
All of a sudden you now have these crazy ideologies about white fragility, about, you know, white privilege and all of these things, and now instead of it just being like, you're rich or you're not, it's like, you are whiteness or you are not.
People think that's insane.
Why?
Well, it is insane.
I mean, there's some truth in the original ideas that were, you know, people were looking at when it comes to race.
And the problem is they take that and they turned it into something nonsensical.
All of a sudden now you have anti-racism.
It's not enough to be actively, you know, it's not enough to be anti, you know, to not be racist, you must be actively anti-racist.
Or these ideas that they want to return to segregation.
No joke, they do.
They're having segregated events at school, segregated dorms.
The best the progressives can do is pretend that it isn't happening.
Because they've dedicated their lives, in the past ten years or so, to this ideology for many longer than that.
And that means that right now, as they're starting to realize they're the losers, and that most people don't like this, they've been on the wrong horse.
This is what happens when you're a grifter.
When your whole political persona is not based upon principles, but based upon what you think people want.
And so what do we get?
Well, over the past 10 years, the way I see it is, due to our personal biases as a culture, we think racism is bad.
Big businesses said, go with whatever the not-racist thing is, right?
We all want to hate racism and bigotry and all that stuff.
The problem was, this was an excellent attack vector for cultists who realized, we can start saying whatever we want, and they'll fund it!
They did.
So people like Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks, for instance, he's dedicated so much to this.
He's betrayed his own principles.
He's no longer liberal.
He's a fascist.
I know it's funny to say, right?
Because it's like, well, they're the ones that know he is.
People like Cenk Uygur and these other progressives and these these these Democrat personalities are fascists in the sense that right now, They are in agreement with the U.S.
government making mandates on people's medical choices and mandates that you buy a private pharmaceutical product from a massive multinational corporation.
Yes, this is Mussolini's fascism in a certain respect.
The word isn't perfect, and maybe we need a different word for it, but you've got people who have been so dedicated to the perceived tribalism instead of actual principles, they're now saying, Big Pharma is great, whereas ten years ago they were like, Big Pharma is bad.
And now they're like, government edict is a good thing.
The funny thing is when they call people like me or you fascists, when we're literally like, no government mandates.
Government should not be mandating massive, you know, pharmaceutical products.
Isn't it funny how that works?
Well, the Democrats do need a reckoning.
Otherwise, they're going to lose.
But let me show you.
Let me show you how they won't have that reckoning.
In a tweet from Cenk Uygur, he highlights Tulsi Gabbard.
I am a big fan of Tulsi Gabbard.
I supported her in the primaries.
I donated the maximum to her campaign.
Tulsi Gabbard tweeted, McAuliffe's loss is a victory for all Americans.
Why?
Because it was resounding rejection of efforts to divide us by race, the stripping of parental rights, and arrogant deaf leaders.
This benefits us all.
Now, why would Tulsi Gabbard, a progressive, or seemingly a progressive, say something like that?
Because Tulsi Gabbard operates on principle.
And you see, let's go back in time.
What principles do I share with Tulsi, and why did I support her?
Well, it's quite simple.
When it comes to the issue of pro-choice versus pro-life, Tulsi Gabbard says safe, legal, and rare, and I'm like, agreed.
That used to be where Democrats were, not anymore, now they're pro-abortion.
Tulsi Gabbard is saying we shouldn't divide Americans based on race.
Agreed.
Stripping of parental rights, bad.
Arrogant death leaders, too many of them.
I completely agree with what she said.
I'm not a Republican.
I'm not a fan of the Republican Party.
I'm glad that Youngkin won because it shows us that regular Americans looked at the cult and said, no, we've had enough of your psychotic behavior.
You see, what was happening is a small fringe minority who believes this psychotic ideology has been pushing and bullying and cancer culturing their way into power.
It eventually reached parents who saw what their kids were being taught and said, I will not stand for this.
Now, of course, there have been people before me and people like me who have been speaking out against this stuff for a long time.
It's finally starting to reach people, which is a great thing.
Cenk Uygur says, Tulsi Gabbard is obvious, obvious right-winger now, and so is anyone who is still a fanboy of hers.
Turncoats like this who are clearly doing it for the money and attention are truly sickening.
Critical race theory isn't taught in any school in Virginia, you effing obvious liar.
Tulsi Gabbard didn't say anything about critical race theory, did she?
No, it's not in her tweet.
She didn't say that.
Cenk Uygur is also lying because he knows he's losing.
The Democrats were crushed in this past election.
I mean, it was Bad!
Not only that, but take a look at 2020.
Although the Democrats did pretty well.
I mean, they retained control of the House.
They gained control of the Senate through the executive branch with the tiebreaker vote from the Vice President.
It's 50-50.
You take a look at Miami.
A Republican won a major urban center.
You look at South Texas.
Turns red.
You take a look at Virginia.
The whole state shifting red.
Republican.
Because these ideas are broken, and we all know it.
Now, Cenk can choose to say, I'm sorry.
For the past five years, I have embraced an ideology that people didn't like.
I just thought they did because it was all I was hearing.
I thought it's what people wanted.
And the left clearly doesn't.
Will he do that?
No, he can't.
He's built a persona around being wrong.
And so his only hope is, no, it's not me who's wrong, it's everyone else who's right-wing.
Everyone who likes Tulsi Gabbard, who is critical of nuclear energy, who is pro-gun control, who is pro-choice.
She's right-wing.
These people can't see it.
I mean, I actually think Cenk Uygur can.
I think he can see it, and I think he realized that when he was losing, he was like, am I on the wrong side of this?
What do I do, though?
Does he come out now and say, you know what, I was wrong?
He can't.
He built up his audience in this direction.
There's nothing he can do now.
Imagine this.
You know, someone like Cenk, his whole MO is just being whatever the left wants him to be.
So he takes a big bet on the fringe cult of the left, thinking this is what they want him to be.
No principles.
If he had principles, he'd be saying what Tulsi Gabbard said.
Because she was a darling of the progressives and Bernie Sanders, even defying Hillary Clinton.
And now she's standing up on principle.
Oh, she's right-wing.
No, you've just gone so far left, you've driven yourselves off the cliff.
We were screaming at you and waving at you, saying, Cenk, stop driving.
Stop.
You're going too far.
This is not what the American people want.
He couldn't tell.
You see, on Twitter, screaming in his ears were the woke cultists.
And so he just assumed, as they drowned out everyone else, that was what people wanted.
Me?
I, for the most part, just care about what I think is true and correct and what is right and what is principled.
That's why I've long said I like universal health care.
Nothing's going to change my mind on that one.
But we would need private health insurance supplemental.
It's far from perfect, considering how the doctors treat, you know, COVID patients and everything like that, with the vaccines and race-based distribution.
I would not want these cultists to gain power through the government.
In which case, it's a rock and a hard place, isn't it?
But I've always basically been in the same place, except for 2A.
For me, that was basically like, there is a legal method towards changing the Second Amendment, and it hasn't been done.
If you want to take away people's right to keep and bear arms, you've got to change the Constitution.
Otherwise, sorry.
So that was a big shift for me.
For the most part, my politics are still idealistically left-leaning.
They won't say that because, well, When they realize they were the cult, as they're starting to realize, as Cenk Uygur is like, no one's teaching this!
No one's teaching this!
It's like, Cenk, we've seen the books.
You're not convincing anybody, okay?
Except for the people you've maintained in the brainwashed state.
Regular Americans, moms and dads, saw what was happening.
They saw it with their own eyes.
And you're losing them.
Maybe Cenk should just come out and be like, I was wrong.
But he won't.
Because for them, it's not about principles.
Never has been.
Take a look at this story from Fox News.
May 13th.
Virginia parents blast school board over graphic books and critical race theory.
Pretty despicable.
Loudoun County Public Schools.
Why, here is a mother.
Her hair is dyed red.
She is not white.
In fact, she's a black woman.
And she said, this is racist.
What they're teaching our kids is racist.
Oh, there's a bunch of examples, of course.
We have this.
This is from Loudoun County.
White fragility, white people are in a state of privilege, blah, blah, blah.
You see, what the left will do to deflect against this is say, that's not really critical race theory!
Right, okay.
It's critical race applied principles.
It is the praxis of critical theory, of critical race theory.
When they say critical race theory is being taught in schools, what they mean is the principles that were developed through CRT are being implemented in all forms and all facets.
I think most people realize this.
So what do you get now?
Regular Americans are standing up to the Democrats and saying, you've lost the plot.
They're finally starting to realize it.
With the collapsed economy, with the constant mandates, with the labor shortages, they're starting to realize things are getting worse, and it is Democrat policy doing it.
Now, the media is doing everything in their power to try and protect them.
My favorite fact check from USA Today is, it is high demand causing gas prices to go up, not Joe Biden's policies.
Absolutely evil people.
You want to know why that one's so evil?
Why is there a high demand for gas?
Because Joe Biden canceled the Keystone pipeline because Joe Biden banned fracking on federal land, among other things.
Joe Biden's policies, free trade, high corporate taxes, keystone was big.
It led people to speculate.
This is the Wall Street Journal reporting.
Speculators immediately started buying up supply, not because of real demand, because Biden created artificial demand through his policies.
USA Today fact check tries to deflect against that.
No, no, no, it's not his fault.
If they gave you the full context and explained, why is demand on the rise?
Well, because people fear that with the shuttering of Keystone, the banning of fracking, there's going to be a shortage in deliverables in the coming year or two, or longer.
In which case, demand will remain high and increase, but supply is constrained by Biden's policies.
In which case, today, speculators started buying up gas oil, driving the prices up.
Among other things, inflation in general, the cost of labor went up due to Biden's policies.
Shortages, paying people not to work, vaccine mandates, the trucker policies, the ports, all of these things are interconnected.
But they do everything in their power to try and deflect and protect Democrats.
If they do not wake up, it's going to get a whole lot worse from here.
I think Ben Shapiro is saying red tsunami incoming.
Maybe.
We still have a year.
Who knows what could happen?
Which brings me to this.
Reveal the racist, Islamophobic, transphobic, and anti-Semitic posts of the Republican trucker who defeated New Jersey Senate President and spent only $153 on his campaign.
Edward Durr.
Oh man, here come the smears, Ed.
But, you know.
Ed knows.
He ran probably because he said, enough.
He sees what's happening in the media.
He sees what's going on with the Democratic Party and says, I'm gonna run.
Nobody thought he'd win, and he did.
At least, he's effectively won at this point.
Now, here come the media smears.
Has he actually said anything that is racist, Islamophobic, transphobic?
Of course not.
He said just, like, regular guy stuff.
Look at him.
He's a regular old dude.
Regular old dude.
Take a look at this.
He said both sides on Charlottesville were thugs, BLM and the neo-Nazis.
Okay?
Well, sure.
He said that, he said that Chelsea Manning should be in prison using a disparaging term, a disparaging pronoun.
Okay, transphobic maybe.
Did anyone see the cops walking, the Trumpers allowed to walk in the Capitol?
A lot of people did.
He says Kamala Harris got her job based on race and gender.
It's sad.
And then he has a post where he says how—it's a quote from Hungarian Jews saying, how did we let it get this bad?
And he's basically saying, don't let it get that bad.
You see how they're trying to smear this guy?
Look at these results.
Edward Derr got 32,000 votes.
This is insane.
And Steve Sweeney got 30,000.
He got 30,000 32,000 votes by virtue of just being not a Democrat.
So what happens now?
Well, we're going to see a lot more of this moving forward.
Red tsunami?
Maybe.
Durs58 is employed as a truck driver for furniture store Raymore in Flanagan.
He grew up in South Jersey, has three kids.
Look at Jeff Van Drew.
Jeff Van Drew was a Democrat in South Jersey, changed parties.
He said that the Democrats have lost their minds.
How do you think I feel?
I was never a big fan of the Democrats.
I was never a big fan of the Republicans.
But where the Democrats used to be.
And I wonder why.
I wonder why they changed.
You know, a lot of people say that Obama is still running a shadow presidency of some sort.
Well, I'll tell you this.
Obama certainly is influential and does give advice.
I don't know if he's actually the president or any of those weird, you know, conspiracies.
People think that Joe Biden is just calling up Obama and being like, whatever you say, Maybe.
Either way, I certainly think Obama is advising, as why wouldn't he?
Former president.
Is he the one who's pushing all of this psychotic behavior?
I don't know.
Publicly, he's called it a circular firing squad, saying it's bad and people don't like this stuff.
So I don't think he's got as much control as people realize.
I mean, he's active to a certain degree, but not really.
This is why Joe Biden was the candidate.
Because the Democrats have no charisma.
The Republicans do.
I mean, Trump was charismatic.
Nasty guy.
That's true.
But you've got a handful of people who stand out.
Josh Hawley stands out.
Ted Cruz stands out.
I don't know if they have what it takes to be president, but Ron DeSantis does.
Ron DeSantis taking care of Florida is effective, successful, people are happy with him.
If he runs for president, I'd imagine he'd win.
I don't think Trump should run.
I think Virginia proves why Trump should not run, because suburban housewives are going to be like, I'll vote for DeSantis, not going to vote for Donald Trump.
And then DeSantis would win.
We'd probably end up seeing Republicans control every branch to an extreme degree because Democrats are unwilling to accept what they represent.
And they represent fringe, deranged ideas.
And there's no charisma there.
Pete Buttigieg?
Nothing.
Kamala Harris?
Nothing.
Who could possibly run for president on the Democratic ticket in 2024?
They have no one.
Not a single person, not even AOC.
I think AOC would just be old enough, but she does not have what it takes.
She may have popularity among the fringes of the left, but not among regular working people.
So who's going to run for the Democrats?
Nobody.
It's amazing.
I love it when, you know, last year the Democrats were saying things like the Republican Party is over.
Look at them, they're disheveled, they're fractured, blah, blah, blah.
And I'm like, yo, this guy, Edward Durr, barely ran and he won.
You think the Republicans are in trouble?
The Republicans are going to get votes by virtue of not being Democrats.
It is going to be the inversion of 2020.
Joe Biden got votes because he was just not Trump.
Now you're going to see what happens when people are like, I'll take anyone who's not a Democrat.
Red tsunami, red wave, whatever you want to call it, I think it's coming.
So I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
The saga of Alec Baldwin is far from over.
And I'm not ready to walk away from this story because I think there will be criminal charges.
And looking at the latest news, the finger pointing, it seems like There could be murder here.
Intentional.
Willful.
Actions taken to end a life.
I don't know if you guys saw the story with Alec Baldwin.
Apparently he was giving some comment.
He was like, I can't give any comment.
That was basically his comment, but he seemed fairly frantic.
I mean, obviously he's being investigated criminally, but now all these pieces are starting to come together.
For those that missed the story somehow, Alec Baldwin, on the set of his movie Rust, drew his weapon, pulled the trigger, and shot and killed a cinematographer, as well as injuring the director.
Initially, the reports were that it was a misfire, that it was a blanket that shrapnel from the camera flew in the face of someone, and then later we started to get the real details.
Alec Baldwin was handed a gun, he drew it, he was rehearsing, he pulled it, and then he finger on the trigger, depressed the trigger, bullet comes out, hits and kills woman.
We're learning a few things.
One, we have this story from Daily Mail.
Alec Baldwin and Rust Crew had been told never to point a gun at a person, lawyer for Armorer says.
Attorneys question how live ammo made its way into the dummy rounds box.
Now there's a bunch of speculation, but again, This is me basically saying, I think there may be intentional murder here.
And I think it may be Alec Baldwin.
Now, this is just speculation.
Just speculation.
I think, in the end, what'll likely happen is, if there are charges, it'll be like negligent homicide or something like that.
But I think manslaughter, perhaps.
The reason is, with this story right now, this story that just came out the other day, that Alec Baldwin had been told never to point the weapon at people.
We now have the confirmation of what most of us already assumed, and that is, on movie sets, you don't point guns at people.
But here's where it gets crazy.
Here's where the murder comes in.
This is from Yahoo News.
Sabotage could be behind tragedy on Baldwin movie set, lawyer says.
That's right.
This is where things are starting to get real crazy.
The crew had been complaining about the conditions.
Several crew had already walked off.
There had already been several negligent discharges.
I'm just saying the stories that we're getting now, Apparently, would be... Well, if these stories are true, then let me map out what they're claiming basically happened with Alec Baldwin.
You get angry crew members...
They want to protest.
They know the gun has been negligently just discharged.
So one of these angry crew members places a live round in the box knowing sooner or later someone's going to put it in and then they're going to be negligent with the firearm and hit somebody.
Now the reason why I think there could actually be something more like murder in this capacity, I'll put it this way, I'm not saying it's a great likelihood, I'm just saying the fact that Alec Baldwin was told not to point the gun at people, but then chose to, gives me pause as to how all of this went down.
So somebody gave live ammo to Alec Baldwin, who knew he wasn't supposed to point the gun at somebody, and then did, Why are we assuming it's not murder?
I mean, I want you to think about that for two seconds.
Why are we assuming that Alec Baldwin did not murder this woman?
There's no good reason.
If people had been complaining, and Alec Baldwin claims the woman was his friend, how do we know that she wasn't one of the people who were complaining?
How do we know that, why would we assume that a guy who picks up a gun, aims it at someone when he knows he's not supposed to, with a live bullet in it, and pulls the trigger, oh, that was an accident.
That, to me, is crazy.
Imagine, like, a woman and a husband are fighting, and then the husband gets in his car and is driving home from work, and he sees his wife, and he slams the gas and just rams into her and goes, it was an accident.
Didn't realize the gas would accelerate that way.
You'd be like, no, get out of here.
We immediately assume that was intentional.
Why not now?
Too many people are willing to give Alec Baldwin the benefit of the doubt, and I don't think we should.
If he's part of the production that's running a movie, and it's got bad conditions, why would we assume he was... Why would we give him the benefit of the doubt?
Here's the story from Yahoo News.
Sabotage.
This is where things get crazy.
They say a lawyer for the Armorer who oversaw weapons used on the Rust movie set suggested on Wednesday that someone deliberately put a live round into the gun used by Alec Baldwin when he accidentally shot dead a cinematographer.
Why are we saying that?
This is the crazy thing.
Why has everyone just immediately assumed it was an accident?
Seriously.
I mean, give me a good reason.
And now that they're saying someone put the bullet in the gun, maybe it was Alec Baldwin!
Maybe!
They're trying to claim that the armor handed him the gun, and I think the reason we're getting this narrative is because the media is on the side of the Democrats.
Alec Baldwin is a major Democrat activist, anti-Trump figure, so the media just says protect him.
Sorry.
If the story is a dude was overseeing, at least to a certain degree, a movie set with bad conditions, pointed a weapon at somebody, and pulled the trigger, sounds like intentional.
Jason Bolus said his client, Hannah Gutierrez, had pulled ammunition from a box that she believed contained only dummy rounds that were incapable of firing.
He says he thought it was possible that someone purposely placed real bullets in the box.
We're afraid that could have been what happened here.
That somebody intended to sabotage this set with a live round intentionally placed in a box of dummies, Bola said on ABC's Good Morning America.
We're not saying anybody had any intent there.
Intent there was going to be a tragedy of homicide.
But they wanted to do something to cause a safety incident on set.
That's what we believe happened.
The spokesman for the producer's Rust Movie Productions had no comment on Bullis' remarks.
The company has said it is investigating the incident and had received no official complaints about safety on the set in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Authorities are investigating the matter, and no charges have been filed against anyone involved.
Never in a million years did Hannah think that live rounds could have been in the dummy round box, Bolas said in a statement later on Wednesday.
Cinematographer Helena Hutchins was killed on October 21st when a gun Baldwin was holding released a live bullet, police said.
Baldwin had been told by assistant director Dave Halls the gun was cold.
An industry term meaning it is safe to use.
Now, we can pause right here and just say, outright, no matter what, as I've stated before, Alec Baldwin is completely responsible for this, period.
But I absolutely believe we need to be asking ourselves, why assume accidental?
For any reason.
Why?
Ask yourself that question.
The investigators need to approach this from a neutral standpoint.
MOLES said Gutierrez had checked the gun before giving it to Halls.
She spun the cylinder and showed Halls each of the rounds, which she believed were six dummy rounds, he said.
Halls then took the gun into the church area where Baldwin was rehearsing a scene.
He said that Gutierrez took her job seriously, had given Baldwin and other actors on the film firearms training, and did everything in her power to ensure a safe set.
Now, I'm gonna slow down once again.
When we approach this on TimCast IRL, and when I covered this before, we all operate under the assumption that it was the armorer who was inexperienced and probably did it wrong.
I'm thinking to myself, why?
Now look, I'll be honest.
I had a whole other segment set up about, you know, vaccines and kids and all this stuff.
And then I saw these stories and I started asking myself, why is it that we approach this as though the armorer was at fault?
Because think about it this way.
The armorer actually is, of all the people, the person with actual firearms training.
The one person who actually knows how to handle firearms properly.
Alec Baldwin is an arrogant egotist who thinks he's smarter than everybody.
Now look, I'm a fan of Baldwin's acting.
I'm a big fan of 30 Rock.
He does Jack Donaghy very well.
But if I'm going to actually stop and approach this from a neutral standpoint, what I get is Alec Baldwin is the kind of guy, many of these leftists, they know nothing about guns.
They don't know how to treat guns, how to handle guns.
And they treat them, and when they are, you know, doing movies, it's lax.
Right now, all of these leftists have been responding to me saying, oh, you clearly don't understand who's at fault and how movie sets work.
Alec Baldwin's not at fault because someone else handed him the gun.
And I'm just like, why did we assume from the get-go that Gutierrez didn't do her job right?
Instead of realizing you've got an angry cast, I'm sorry, crew, walking off set.
Is that not motive for Alec Baldwin?
For real, I think we need to recognize that we know nothing about this.
Alec Baldwin had motive.
A bunch of people are disrupting his movie, they're walking off set, they're complaining.
Alec Baldwin was told not to point the guns at people, point a gun at anyone ever, and he did, and the armorer claims the weapon was checked.
Did Alec Baldwin load this and say, I'm sick of this, bang?
Look, a lot of people are saying, you know, that's far-fetched, right?
Let's try the alternative.
Three people failed to check a gun, Alec Baldwin just accidentally pointed at someone and pulled the trigger and had a real bullet in it?
The one, out of six rounds in the chamber, the one that was ready to go just happened to have been the live round and Alec Baldwin just accidentally pointed it at someone?
Doesn't it sound crazier?
Alright.
Asked who would intentionally place live ammo with dummy rounds.
Bolas said on NBC's Today Show that he believed it could be a person who wanted to prove a point.
To say they're disgruntled, they're unhappy.
And we know that people had already walked off the set the day before.
I'm sorry.
It sounds to me more like Alec Baldwin was angry with the crew for screwing him over.
He's a producer on the movie, right?
Now, I don't think Alec Baldwin's a murderer.
Maybe it just does make more sense that someone was disgruntled and put a bullet in the box.
But then that would mean that someone from the crew was disgruntled and tried setting up Alec Baldwin, but that would require Alec Baldwin to decide to point the gun at someone and pull the trigger.
In which case, that is not the simple solution.
Baldwin is also a producer on the film.
He has said that he is heartbroken and is cooperating with authorities.
Now here's where, here, look, look, look.
We're gonna, we're gonna spin yarn here.
We're gonna spin ya a yarn here.
From TMZ, Alec Baldwin doubts Rust will continue after Helena Hutchins' death.
Did you guys see this video?
When Alec Baldwin gave a statement?
He said, she was my friend!
She was my friend!
The day before production, I went out and had dinner with her!
Really!
Could he have been having a meeting with Helena Hutchins over the bad conditions?
Could she have been saying, look, people are not happy with what's going on?
Could he have been like this MFN SOB coming here and saying these things to me?
Let me map it out again.
Alec Baldwin pointed the gun at someone and pulled the trigger to live round in it.
Now we get all of this assumption and speculation as to how that could have happened.
And they're saying maybe, maybe people were target shooting.
That's one of the stories.
People were target shooting and so the live rounds were left right there.
Possibly.
But then why did Alec Baldwin point the gun and pull the trigger?
That doesn't make sense.
It doesn't add up.
Okay, well maybe someone tried sabotaging Alec Baldwin.
Why did Alec Baldwin point the gun and pull the trigger?
This guy's got to get charged in my opinion, man.
TMZ says, The actor addressed a swarm of paparazzi Saturday who were hounding him in Manchester, Vermont, where he and his family have been laying low since the fatal incident, but have been getting followed around, including on the open road, where the Baldwin family literally pulled over to confront the faux-togs, whom Alec says made his kids cry.
Alec came at them head-on, with none other than his wife, Hilaria, at his side, and they spoke their piece on where things stand, without divulging too much about the investigation.
They say, from the looks of it, the convo was pretty tense, albeit courteous.
Baldwin demands to know what the paparazzi wanted to know, so they could get off his back.
And they sounded off one by one.
On where things stand as the probe into this matter unfolds, Alex said he can't discuss the details by order of the Santa Fe Sheriff's Office.
I'm calling BS on that.
I am calling BS on that.
The cops going to Baldwin and saying, don't you talk to the press.
No, his lawyer may be saying don't talk to the press, but the cops, the cops want as much information as possible.
Keep talking, Alec.
Right?
You have the right to remain silent.
Anything.
Oh, is that what they said to him?
And that's what he's claiming?
I don't buy it.
I don't.
He did say Helena was his friend, and that he took her out for dinner upon arriving to shoot Rust.
Alec also characterized the crew as well-oiled, noting the incident as obviously shocking and devastating to him.
He also touched on how Helena's family is doing, saying they're mortified, but that he's in touch with them quite often, ditto for the authorities.
One major takeaway from his interview is the fact Alex spoke on what should happen with firearms on movie hits going forward.
He fully supports tightening up safety measures and possibly banning real guns and live ammo altogether, while acknowledging he isn't a pro on that.
It's interesting.
Alex asked an open-ended question that seems to show where his head's at as far as consequences, wondering how many real guns and bullets have been fired on film and TV sets over the past several decades, mostly without incident, in his mind, a lot.
Up until now, Baldwin has only spoken about the tragedy once in his own words, but it was via Twitter and not in the flesh.
Shortly after the shooting took place, he issued a since-deleted statement saying,
quote, there are no words to convey my shock and sadness regarding this tragic incident
that took the life of Helena Hutchins, a wife, mother, and deeply admired colleague of ours.
I'm fully cooperating with the police investigation to address how this tragedy occurred.
Okay, maybe what happens is people see Alec Baldwin pointing the gun with blanks and shooting at
people.
Because Alec Baldwin has reckless disregard for the rules.
And then they sabotaged him by putting a bullet in the gun.
I just think we are trying so hard, and we have been trying so hard since this started, to explain away what is very simple.
Alec Baldwin pointing a gun at someone, pulling the trigger, and a bullet coming out and killing that person.
We're trying to explain it away.
Is that not then the perfect murder scenario?
Is the implication then that anybody who wants to kill anybody else just lures them to a movie set and draws a weapon and says, can't blame me, it's a movie set?
Or do we look at this and say, it seems like Alec Baldwin's full of ish?
Discrepancies emerge as Alec Baldwin defends Rust production, Armorer, from reported on-set strife.
Yahoo News, well, they're re-hosting Fox, says, an investigation into the death of Helena Hutchins on the set of Rust continues.
Clear discrepancies are emerging among crew members and producers like Alec Baldwin.
They say Baldwin was holding the gun, somehow fired a live round, so this we all understand.
However, he has shared a few brief comments on social media in which he seemingly denies culpability on behalf of the production for an allegedly rushed and corner-cutting set.
He also seems to join those who believe Assistant Director Dave Halls is responsible.
Halls was one of the very few people, including Armourer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, who handled the gun prior to Baldwin discharging a real bullet.
Santa Fe County Sheriff Adam Mendoza said the investigation will focus on the people who held the gun, as well as figuring out how live rounds made their way to the set at all.
According to a search warrant previously executed by the Sheriff's Department, Halls noted during an interview with detectives that he should have checked the rounds in the gun better after being handed the gun by Gutierrez-Reed, who also believed it was filled with dummy rounds incapable of discharging.
They say Halls' attorney, Lisa Turaco, joined Fox News' Martha McCallum for an interview on the story, where she addressed the inspection of the gun and couldn't seem to lock down her client's cullability.
This idea—my client grabbed the gun and handed it to Baldwin—absolutely did not happen, she said, but later backtracked and dodged questions about whether Halls handed the gun to Baldwin, despite McCallum asking whether Halls doesn't know if he handed the gun to Alec Baldwin.
While Halls was allegedly one of the last people to handle the gun before it went off, and was indeed tasked with checking it prior to giving it to the actor, some believe Gutierrez-Reed may have dropped the ball as well.
Her attorneys noted during an interview on the Today Show Wednesday that she loaded the
gun from a box of ammo that was supposed to only contain dummy rounds.
Somehow, neither she nor Halls realized the rounds had been mixed in.
Okay, maybe the crew was mad at Baldwin and they put in the live bullet.
Maybe they didn't realize it would kill somebody.
I just think it's spinning a conspiracy theory.
Occam's razor suggests that the answer that makes the least amount of assumptions tends to be the correct one.
It's hard to know exactly which one makes the least amount of assumptions.
Alec Baldwin reportedly did not load the weapon himself.
He did, however, point it.
Is the simple solution then that they all conspired to shoot this woman?
How about this?
Alec Baldwin having dinner with a woman who's not his wife.
I don't know.
I don't think that matters.
I think, you know, you're on a work set and you're meeting with somebody.
But I need to understand how it is that Alec Baldwin decided to point the gun at this woman and pull the trigger.
If that's the case, then I think the simple solution would ever so slightly tilt towards Alec Baldwin did it.
Imagine this.
The armorer loads the weapon with dummy rounds.
The assistant director also has it and assumes the armorer has done a good job.
Alec Baldwin takes out a dummy round and puts in a live round, points it at the woman, and pulls the trigger.
We don't have hard, direct motive.
We don't know that this woman, you know, Helena, did anything to Alec Baldwin, and he claims that they were friends.
But I don't think that has a big enough impact on what happened to determine that Alec Baldwin did nothing wrong.
I think very clearly he did.
At the very least, negligent homicide, manslaughter.
Because he chose to draw a weapon without checking it, pointing it at a person when he's not supposed to.
And they say, straight up, this is the latest breaking news on this.
They say that Baldwin was told never to point the weapon at a person.
Why did he do it?
I think that's the big question that needs to be asked of jurors.
Meaning, Alec Baldwin should be criminally charged for this.
And then, when it goes, maybe, when it goes to a jury, the defense can say, here's our reasonable explanation as to why Alec Baldwin, who is trained not to point weapons at people, pointed the weapon, pulled the trigger.
I don't think he's going to have a good enough reason.
I think what happened, what's happened here is, as I stated, Alec Baldwin is a staunch Democrat activist.
The media is going to go for the benefit of the doubt across the board.
Nope, he couldn't have done anything wrong.
It was a movie set.
Why would we give him the benefit of the doubt?
If this was a conservative or a Republican or Trump supporter, they'd be saying it was intentional.
The guy's a gun nut.
He was enraged.
We know this because of who Trump is and these are Trump supporters and all that stuff.
But Alec Baldwin and everyone, even conservatives, are like, clearly it was an accident.
We don't know that.
We don't know that.
And I think, based on the factors we saw laid out over at Legal Insurrection, that Alec Baldwin was handed a weapon, didn't check it, violated his training, violated all standard firearm safety protocols, pointed the weapon at a person, depressed the trigger, in which a bullet was projected, killing a woman.
Alec Baldwin committed murder, in my opinion.
Anyway, I don't know if this story matters to you or anybody else at this point.
Honestly, you know, I was reading news about vaccines and stuff and I was just like, I saw the latest news that Alec Baldwin was told not to point the gun and I'm like, why did we gloss over all of this?
Why did we choose to enter this narrative from Alec Baldwin must have made a mistake or someone sabotaged him?
Why is it that Yahoo News is saying it must have been sabotage?
If you're going to believe it was sabotage and that there was criminal intent to kill a person, why wouldn't it have been from Alec Baldwin?
Because the media won't accept that this guy could have done something.
I don't know, maybe he did.
I'm not going to play a game, so I'll leave it there.
