S5223 - Police Start Preparing For BLM RIOTS As Even Leftists Say Rittenhouse WILL Be Acquitted, Not Guilty
Police Start Preparing For BLM RIOTS As Even Leftists Say Rittenhouse WILL Be Acquitted, Not Guilty. Mainstream media has slowly begun accepting reality, that Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self defense
MSNBC's Chris Hayes stated that Kyle Rittenhouse will be found not guilty, several progressives on twitter expressed shock at the true details of the case.
As the real story comes out Democrats and their media narratives collapse many people are realizing the truth and Kyle Rittenhouse is not guilty
#BLMRiots
#Rittenhouse
#RittenhouseTrial
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Today is November 11th, 2021, and our first story.
Police have begun preparing for riots.
Because everyone, even leftists, expect Kyle Rittenhouse to be acquitted.
Chris Hayes on his show said, after what I've seen, I believe he will be acquitted.
And the prosecution is going down in flames.
In our next story, progressives are demanding a mistrial because the judge's ringtone is God Bless the USA.
I'm sorry, but this country is falling apart.
And in our last story, one of the leaders of Black Lives Matter in New York has threatened violence, riots, and bloodshed if the police try to re-institute their anti-crime unit amid an exploding crime rate in New York City.
This country's headed down a dark path.
Before we get started, leave us a good review and give us five stars.
Tell your friends about the show if you really want to help out.
Without now, let's get into that first story.
It goes to jury deliberations, and who knows?
By then, the jury may come back with a near-instant verdict of not guilty.
Now, of course, Kyle Rittenhouse still faces a misdemeanor gun charge.
The curfew charge was dismissed, and it seems like he's going to get convicted on the misdemeanor gun charge.
There are some legal questions about that we can get into, but for now, the big and most important news.
Chicago PD cancels officers days off in preparation for civil unrest over Kyle Rittenhouse trial as America braces for an acquittal.
It's not just you or I and more savvy politicos who are aware that an acquittal is very likely and probably coming soon.
Even leftists are starting to wake up to realize Kyle Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense.
We have the famous clip from Anna Kasparian of the Young Turks who said, I was wrong.
She had initially claimed that Rosenbaum, one of Kyle Rittenhouse's attackers, was being chased by Rittenhouse.
When in fact, we know from the trial, the inverse is true.
Kyle Rittenhouse was being chased by Rosenbaum.
In fact, if you're a follower of my work and Tim Castile, you've seen the video going back since the night in question.
Chris Hayes of MSNBC says, in a monologue, he will likely be acquitted.
And now we're seeing tweets go viral.
One in which an individual says, my progressive bubble had me believe this was something that it wasn't.
One individual saying, they didn't know.
That the people who attacked Kyle Rittenhouse were, in fact, white people.
Because the progressive narrative, even from Joe Biden, well, actually, I should say allegedly from Joe Biden.
I haven't actually checked into that tweet.
But there have been statements from several high-profile individuals and Democrats, for instance, Ayanna Pressley, that Kyle Rittenhouse was a white supremacist who went to hunt down Black Lives Matter.
A lie.
The prosecution is going down in flames.
It is abhorrent.
What this prosecutor is doing, I will say, is outright evil.
A new witness today, Drew Hernandez.
We've had him on TimCast IRL on more than one occasion, a direct witness who filmed what happened that night.
And the prosecution is accusing him of bias.
The prosecution is going after him because he testified to very important details.
One, that Kyle Rittenhouse attempted to de-escalate violence and aggression, and at one point, succeeded.
Now the narrative the prosecution is trying to put forward is intentional homicide.
That's the murder charge, more than one against Kyle Rittenhouse, that he intended to go there and kill people.
But with all the testimony we've seen, and now with the testimony of Drew Hernandez, we now know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Kyle Rittenhouse was trying to prevent violence.
Very, very bad for the state's case.
Who then begins trying to mischaracterize what happened in Kenosha, and begins accusing Drew Hernandez of political bias.
The judge intervenes and says, this is not a political trial.
This is a fact witness who watched what happened.
And the prosecution is trying to claim that because Drew Hernandez doesn't like rioters, he's biased.
That's how bad things are going for the prosecution, which brings me to the news we're seeing now earlier today in a previous segment.
You'll hear this on the podcast in a minute.
Black Lives Matter in New York has threatened directly to riot and stated there will be bloodshed.
if the police reinstitute their anti-crime unit, plainclothes officers who seek to stop crime.
I think it is fair to say when the sentiment from Black Lives Matter is you give us what we want or
else an acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse will result in very serious violence.
Now, we don't know for sure.
It's winter, okay?
Well, it's not winter.
It's fall, but it's getting cold.
People don't like going out in the cold, so maybe they won't riot.
The police certainly think they will.
They're now pulling in more officers in expectation of an acquittal.
And I think as more and more people on the left say an acquittal is coming, seems ever likely it will be happening.
But let me go through all this and break it down for you.
Where the mainstream media and the left have begun to accept they were wrong the whole time, you can no longer push the lies because people can watch the criminal trial for themselves.
Kyle Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense.
A tragic moment shouldn't have happened, but he should not be going to prison.
Let's start with the first story.
Before we do, head over to TimCast.com and become a member in order to get access to exclusive members-only segments from the various shows we have, notably the TimCast IRL Podcast, a massive library of conversations with many political commentators and personalities you're familiar with.
As a member, you're helping support our journalists, and we are expanding and hiring more journalists, as well as putting a lot of these resources into nonprofits to fact-check The mainstream media is what we're building.
So with your membership, we are expanding, protecting freedom, expanding people's access to technology to prevent censorship, and calling out the lies in the mainstream media.
But don't forget to like this video, subscribe to this channel, share this video right now with your friends, because even if you disagree, Even if you think Kyle Rittenhouse should be acquitted, I think it's important everybody know that the police are preparing for mass unrest.
The Daily Mail reports, Chicago police cancels officers days off in preparation for civil unrest over Kyle Rittenhouse trial as America braces for an acquittal.
I want to stop right there and just issue my personal analysis.
I do not believe it is fair to say that the people that lost their lives were Black Lives Matter protesters.
And I think the right might disagree with that.
One of the individuals in question, Joseph Rosenbaum, had just gotten out of jail for very serious Crimes against children.
I don't believe he knew anything about the protest movement for the most part.
I think he had literally gotten out of jail.
I believe that morning he was still carrying his jail bag.
He had been sentenced to 15 years for crimes against children.
I believe that he likely just... he showed up?
I don't think he was an ideologically driven individual.
I think he was just a criminal individual.
Now, as for one of the other individuals, Gage Grosskreutz, fair to say he was a revolutionary and supporter of Black Lives Matter.
They're going to say the teenage gunman claims he was defending his hometown from an angry mob.
False.
He stated that he was there to provide medical assistance to the protesters and rioters themselves.
Try and prevent damage, but that his actions were in defense of his life.
Closing arguments are expected next week, but the case has already been thrown into chaos.
Rittenhouse's lawyers have asked for a mistrial—with prejudice, I might add—because prosecutors introduced banned evidence.
Some legal experts have now suggested it was a deliberate move to throw the trial, as their chances of convicting grew narrower.
Court is now back in session, but the heat surrounding the case is increasing.
Earlier this morning, the judge revealed that the court has been inundated with communications from members of the public, including offensive emails.
The judge was branded a racist in some of them, and attorneys on both sides have been targeted.
Chicago PD sent a memo to officers this week notifying them that one of their days off this weekend had been canceled, claiming it was due to current crime patterns in the city.
Fraternal Order of Police President John Catanzaro claims it is in anticipation of upheaval from the Rittenhouse trial.
He said in a video posted on YouTube on Monday.
He fumed at the canceled time off and said, they do not get to keep saying we need manpower just in
case a verdict doesn't go positive.
And all of a sudden there's upheaval. The police department is now refusing to confirm or deny his
claims or whether they anticipate uprising this weekend or next week. All they will say is,
to enhance public safety and to address current crime patterns, all full duty sworn members
will have one regular day off canceled this upcoming weekend between November 12th and
through November 14th.
I think it's fairly obvious.
These days are specific.
Coming up this weekend, the potential for riots escalate dramatically.
The prosecution has failed.
Now, they may still get Kyle Rittenhouse on some lesser charges.
He's charged with intentional homicide.
Perhaps the jury comes back with manslaughter.
It's starting to look like a full acquittal across the board.
There's still the question of underage possession of a firearm, but I do have a legal analysis to go through there where Rittenhouse may actually get that charge dismissed as well.
Well, maybe not dis- may be dismissed, but he may be found not guilty.
However, it looks very likely he will be convicted on the misdemeanor charge.
That being said, everyone expects unrest.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
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.
In this clip from the Washington Free Beacon, Drew Hernandez, he's been on the show several times as a reporter and political commentator, was providing testimony.
They say, the prosecutor says Hernandez's footage is very slanted against the people who are rioting.
Let me play the clip for you.
unidentified
Videos that you have captured of these incidents that you call riots, they're very slanted against the people who are rioting.
You characterize them as Antifa, Black Lives Matter, rioters, correct?
Because they are rioting in the footage, yes, absolutely.
Trying to accuse a fact witness who provided video evidence from that night of bias because he films people who are Antifa, who are Black Lives Matter, who are rioting.
This is absolute desperation that escalates in one of the craziest moments.
In a clip from MercadoLaw's livestream, and with a comment from Lauren Southern, she says, when you have absolutely nothing to discredit the witness, so you start attacking them for getting a lawyer, Judge Smackdown is incredible.
Let me play for you the clip.
unidentified
What we just saw was your editing of them together.
You guys asked for my footage, so I gave it to you.
I'm going to pause real quick.
The prosecutor asked Drew Hernandez what the footage you know was being what what footage
was being shown.
How was it filmed?
Drew was filming with a body cam on his chest and a cell phone.
The prosecutor said, what footage was that?
Both, replied Drew Hernandez.
There was some stupid argument back and forth trying to explain what it was, but ultimately what Drew Hernandez said was, this video clip contains the body cam footage and then the cell phone footage.
The prosecution accused them of altering or editing the video in one of the most insane arguments ever.
Knowing that this wasn't going anywhere, trying to accuse someone of splicing video simply because it's two different videos playing concurrently, not manipulation in any way, he changes his question to go after Drew Hernandez simply for having a lawyer.
Check this out.
unidentified
Yes?
That's an attorney that you have out of Madison?
We've had a lot of questions about other people.
I would like to know why he felt the need to retain an attorney to provide video on this case.
Look, the prosecutorial misconduct is just appalling.
Let's break it down.
Introducing banned evidence, the judge screamed at him.
Questioning Kyle Rittenhouse's right to remain silent, the judge yelled at him.
And now, he is questioning why a witness retains a lawyer completely immaterial to anything having to do with this case.
They're trying to accuse bias because someone had a lawyer send footage?
It's quite simple.
Why did you retain a lawyer, sir?
I'm busy!
You know, I don't want to deal with answering your phone calls all day and night.
In fact, Drew Hernandez testified when the detectives in the case contacted him requesting footage from that night, he was busy with work and unable to reply.
It was only later on he was able to get an attorney to help him deliver the footage to the state and the defense.
The defense was not given this footage before anybody else.
It was at the same time.
I'll put it very, very simply for the state to answer their desperate questions.
In the initial request for footage, Drew Hernandez said, I was traveling and covering other stories and didn't have the time to respond.
So why hire an attorney?
So they can handle it for you.
That's normal.
The prosecution is spiraling out of control, and everyone knows it.
And it got worse.
Rakeda.
Tweeted, Binger, the prosecutor, is now arguing that hiring a lawyer to help you submit evidence to the state is evidence of bias.
Binger does not respect the Constitution.
Rikada previously tweeted, Binger just admitted this is a political trial like an effing moron.
Binger said that he was challenging the witness having a lawyer because he's trying to introduce political bias.
The judge responds, this is not a political trial.
And it's an absurd line of questioning.
If you have a witness on the stand who says, here's what I saw under oath, Then your accusation of bias is nothing.
It is pointless.
It is immaterial.
Are you going to accuse Gage Grosskreutz of being biased?
I mean, personally and out of trial?
I will.
The defense didn't.
Now, of course.
The defense said, you, Grosskreutz, raised your fist and said, long live the revolution.
You're affiliated with these groups.
There's a big difference between someone actively participating in a political action who's saying, long live the revolution, and a journalist who retains a lawyer.
You can see the dirty games the prosecution is trying to play.
But the media is also trying to play dirty games.
From Breitbart, CBS News deletes post.
Declaring Kyle Rittenhouse a murderer before trials end.
You see what the media does?
Take a look at this tweet.
CBS Mornings tweeted, Kyle Rittenhouse testified in his murder trial yesterday, breaking down in tears as he told the jury he murdered two men at a Black Lives Matter protest last year in self-defense.
He never said he murdered anybody.
He explicitly said he wanted to help people.
He didn't want to hurt anybody.
He explicitly said he did not want to kill anybody.
He explicitly stated he only fired until the threat presented before him was no more.
When he was asked about Rosenbaum firing four shots, the prosecution tried to make it seem like it was an extended period of time where Rittenhouse was firing his gun.
The prosecution asked him, you shot Rosenbaum?
He's like, yes.
And then after he was shot, you fired on him again.
He was trying to make it seem like Rittenhouse shot the guy, and then waited a second, and then shot him again.
The defense rebutted this masterfully, having an expert witness come in with video footage and show that four shots were fired in approximately three quarters of one second.
That is to say, in less than one second, Kyle Rittenhouse fired four shots.
It's quite simple why he did.
I'm not happy any of it happened, and I think it's fair to point that out.
But when someone is charging at you with their hand on your weapon, you don't know if any of those rounds will hit them.
In which, I think it is important to state, the defense should.
They should mention this to the jury.
When it came to Anthony Huber and Gage Grosskreutz, a single round is no guarantee to neutralize the target.
It shows that Kyle Radeau's intention was to neutralize and minimize.
In the case of Joseph Rosenbaum, who directly threatened his life and grabbed his weapon, Rittenhouse fired four times because he was trying to neutralize the threat.
When he ran from the scene and was attacked by other people, he fired two shots at one person, then one shot and one shot.
That says to me that he was trying to minimize the amount of damage.
The prosecution said to him, you wanted to kill those people.
Rittenhouse said, no.
He said, but you shot them with a gun.
Don't you think that would happen?
The answer is no.
People think life is a movie.
Where somebody gets punched one time and then they're unconscious.
Watch videos of police confrontations.
One famous video went viral, where an officer fires upon a man who's attacking him, I believe with a knife, and the man keeps running at him.
Because shooting someone is no guarantee the threat will be neutralized.
And we don't want people getting shot, we don't want anyone getting hurt.
It's sad always, because life is precious, even when they're bad people.
I oppose the death penalty.
But I believe Kyle Rittenhouse was just scared for his life.
This man threatened him.
Kyle Rittenhouse fled.
As Drew Hernandez has now added to the testimony.
Watching it happen.
Drew Hernandez also testified.
Rosenbaum was trying to start fights.
Now the state objected saying speculative.
But Hernandez said he was screaming, shoot me!
And that was allowed.
The media has tried to play dirty games, but now it has become undeniable.
Of course, many of you may have already seen the story, because we've covered it several times.
Anna Kasparian, co-host of The Young Turks, shockingly revealed she was wrong about key facts concerning the case of Kyle Rittenhouse.
I absolutely respect her coming out and saying she was wrong, 100%.
And that's all I'll say on the matter.
We can disagree politically, but this was the right thing to do, and I respect it.
From what I've seen, it is very likely he will be acquitted, honestly.
Chris Hayes, MSNBC, and all these networks that lied, that pushed propaganda, now being forced to accept this is reality.
Chris Hayes, of course, will not just walk away from this.
He'll shift the argument, saying, quote, Do we want a society in which political conflict is settled on the streets between people with guns?
One in which everyone is armed and can therefore view the other people armed as a plausible threat?
Is that the society we want?
The answer is no.
Of course not.
But Chris, when you get facts wrong, and you defend violent extremists who are burning down cities, and then you criticize the police and the police stop protecting the community, what did you think was going to happen?
People like Kyle Rittenhouse, They will show up and they will say something must be done.
The left has heavily criticized Kyle Rittenhouse saying he wanted to play police officer.
Yeah, I agree with that assessment.
I really do.
Kyle Rittenhouse wanted to be a cop.
He wanted to be an EMT.
He showed up with a weapon.
He showed up with a first aid kit.
Why did he have a weapon?
I mean, for defense.
That's why you're allowed to keep in bare arms.
Period.
And they shouldn't be able to question your constitutional right to keep in bare arms.
In fact, if someone said, why were you carrying a weapon?
Because it's my right.
Then you can ask me why I defended myself.
Now that's a specific question that should be answered.
But Kyle Rittenhouse, I think he did want to play cop.
Why?
Because the police stood down everywhere across this country.
We watched it happen in New York, in Chicago, in Kenosha.
We watched a video of a man get bashed over the back of the skull by these extremists.
And I still think Conrad Nauss should not have gone out there.
I think this was a political question, and watching these riots unfold, they needed to be stopped, but they needed to be stopped by police.
And this would have required citizens of good conscience to stand up and demand of their leaders put an end to it.
But you see, the issue is, people don't stand up.
They wouldn't speak out.
They were scared.
They thought of themselves as Black Lives Matter and Antifa riot, and they go door-to-door, banging on doors.
If I keep my head down, they'll skip over my door.
If I put the sign in the window, they'll skip over my window.
And then what happens is the police say, we have no support from the community, so we will not intervene.
No, what needed to happen was the people of Kenosha needed to rise up together, peacefully, and come out on the streets and say, we condemn this no more.
They didn't.
They stayed in their homes.
They did nothing.
In fact, when it came to some of these businesses, they just told people to go out there with weapons.
I understand why Kyle Rittenhouse and these other individuals did.
I absolutely understand why they did.
I don't fault them for doing it because I understand the circumstances, but I do, I will criticize the action of doing it.
And it's difficult.
Because people may have lost their lives to a greater degree that day, were it not for people putting out fires.
They were trying to push a flaming dumpster into the street, but they were pushing it towards a gas station.
And there have been witnesses who said they were trying to push it towards the gas station.
I'm not sure if I would go that far, but they were pushing it in that direction.
And it may have been Kyle Rittenhouse, but one of the people in this group put that fire out.
I'm not going to pretend to be the arbiter of morality.
I understand why they went out there.
I wish they didn't.
Maybe it would have been worse.
I honestly don't know.
And that's the challenge in saying I would have preferred something else.
Perhaps it's ignorant and naive of me to say they shouldn't have been there because what if these people killed others as we had seen?
I believe the total is 32 dead in the George Floyd riots.
I want to show you this tweet.
Sorry, not this one.
Here we go.
Martyr Made.
I'm not sure who exactly this Twitter account is.
Just 100,000 followers.
Martyr Made podcast says, It's easy to shake your head at these people, but this is entirely the result of the press being unsalvageable demons.
A woman named Sarah Beth Berwick tweeted, Well, I don't believe it's fair to say the people who were shot by Kyle Rittenhouse were victims.
that I learned that Kyle Rittenhouse's victims were white.
My progressive bubble made this seem like a very different case than it is.
Well, I don't believe it's fair to say the people who were shot by Kyle Rittenhouse were
victims.
I believe they were perpetrators of crime.
The first individual, Rosenbaum, was a convicted felon who committed several atrocities against
children, who threatened the life of Kyle Rittenhouse and others, which is already a
crime, and then committed assault and battery against him.
I don't know about Wisconsin law, but in Illinois, assault is putting someone in reasonable fear of harm, and battery is, when you make contact, spitting on someone is battery.
In this instance, Rosenbaum grabbed Rittenhouse's gun.
Battery.
Threatened his life.
Assault.
Potentially aggravated.
Maybe they could argue it wasn't, but I'd say the moment he grabbed that gun, it was an aggravated assault.
Renton House, then.
Fight on this man.
Anthony Huber.
This one's interesting.
He was a convicted criminal, but I genuinely believe he thought he was stopping someone doing something wrong.
I really do.
But the problem is, your belief about what's happening is immaterial to self-defense.
Gage Grosskreutz, now his testimony was very different.
He testified he believed Rittenhouse was working with the police, or at least that Rittenhouse claimed he was.
It's not true, Rittenhouse never said that.
But that's what he believed.
Gage Grosskreutz, armed with a weapon he was not legally allowed to be possessing, illegally concealed, Not knowing what happened, and believing that Kyle Rittenhouse was working with police by Rittenhouse's own statement, advanced on him with a gun in his hand.
THAT was overtly criminal.
But Rittenhouse was still entitled to defend himself against everyone.
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 of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
In response to this tweet, where this woman said, my progressive bubble made it seem like a very different case, one person said, oh my, I did not know this.
Another said, I assumed the same.
And another said, I was pretty shocked to learn many of the details over the past couple of weeks too.
Once I watched all the video footage and learned some other details, I was like, and then he puts a shocked emoji.
I was also at the time in a progressive bubble.
I've changed a lot since then, and I'm grateful for that.
It's a fact that the person who attacked Kyle Rittenhouse committed serious, aggressive crimes against children.
The jury isn't allowed to know that, and I think it's the right call on the judge's part.
I think in the bigger picture, a lot of people would be biased against this individual, but the question here is whether or not self-defense occurred.
In the end, There actually is one question that needs to be answered, and that's the gun charge.
If there is a mistrial with prejudice, that is the best outcome for the defense.
Kyle Rittenhouse cannot be charged again.
All of the charges are dismissed.
But the judge hasn't moved in that direction, so we don't know exactly how this will play out.
As I'm recording this, of course, the trial is still ongoing and new details are emerging, but it seems like the trial won't be over until at least Monday or Tuesday.
Potentially Monday.
That's what the judge said the other day.
The judge may still rule.
On the motion for a mistrial with prejudice.
Because it seems that the prosecutor is almost trying to make it happen.
I wonder.
I wonder if the prosecutor is ideologically driven and knows that the best outcome for the extremists is a mistrial with prejudice.
Then he can claim that justice was not served and the judge was biased.
The media has already made those claims.
The prosecutor violated the constitutional rights of Kyle Rittenhouse.
The judge called it a grave constitutional violation.
In fact, today, the judge reprimanded the prosecution again, saying, yesterday, you were admonished over the constitution, not law.
The prosecution tried introducing evidence that had been barred from the trial, and the judge yelled at him for it.
And today, the prosecution is trying to strike at the credibility of a fact witness with video footage Because he's a lawyer?
People have a right to retain counsel.
It is a basic right in this country.
It is a right to retain counsel.
No one should be questioned simply because they have a lawyer.
To imply guilt or a lack of credibility simply because you asked for legal advice is insane.
Now in this instance, Drew Hernandez is not on trial himself.
And the judge said, you know, I think I'll allow it, but I'll be watching closely.
I'm surprised the judge has allowed what he has.
And I believe at this point the judge, he really should issue a, declare a mistrial with prejudice.
But it would be the best outcome that a jury comes back and says, not guilty on all counts.
The gun charge may remain.
Legal Insurrections' Andrew Branca, who I think has the best commentary across the board on this.
He's a self-defense legal expert.
We've had him on the show before.
He points out that there is an exception to the gun charge.
And he says in the statute, Section 3C.
It's interesting.
Let me see if I can... Here we go.
He says the entire legal analysis would include the relevant Part 3C.
It says this section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or shotgun if the person is not in compliance with SS 29304 and 29593.
So unless Kyle is not in compliance with those provisions, the 948.60 gun possession statute would seem not to apply to him at all.
That is, he would be legally exempt from the provisions of 948.60 entirely.
Basically, these two other provisions, both must be not in compliance to simplify.
One of the exceptions specifically states that a person must be under the age of 16.
It says, if we take a closer look at 29304, we see that it also is a hunting related statute, but one that involves restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.
What that means is, many people believe That this could be interpreted by the judge, because it would have to be the judge, that the law about underage of the weapon was modified to state that it is only applicable to those under the age of 16.
That means, when they say under 18, they may be saying minors, with the exception of 16 to 17 year olds.
It actually makes sense to frame the law this way.
Otherwise, what they'd have to do is write the law and say, this law applies to everybody who is underage, specifically the ages of 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0.
Now, it makes sense to say people under the age of 18, except 16 and 17.
The two years you're exempted from this.
And it may be simply because when they passed the law, they later amended it, or when the law was going through committee before it was passed, someone said, come on, 16 and 17 year olds go hunting with their parents and can bear rifles?
To put it simply, it would seem the law in Wisconsin is, you can't have a handgun unless you're over 18.
You can't have a rifle unless you're at least 16 or 17.
Though, there's a question about the legality there.
It's a matter for the judge.
A mistrial with prejudice is the best outcome.
It's also politically one of the worst outcomes.
We'll see how this plays out.
Right now, as I'm recording this, Drew Hernandez is continuing his testimony.
We'll see what dirty games the prosecution wants to play.
But I'll put it this way.
I don't believe Drew Hernandez is biased against rioters and vandals and Black Lives Matter and Antifa.
I think he's just telling the truth.
And I think the problem is the media lies so much, the truth sounds biased.
They accuse me of being biased because I tell the truth.
It's that simple.
When I investigated Russiagate and Ukrainegate and I told the truth, they accused me of bias for just being honest.
I'm wrong sometimes.
But even when you recognize the young Turks, Anna Kasparian, saying she was wrong, I've been right the whole time.
I've told the truth the whole time.
Donald Trump pinned a tweet from me on his Twitter account when he had it, last year, where I said that the Kyle Rittenhouse case convinced me to vote for Trump, because I saw the depravity and the evil in the system that needed to be resisted.
And it was extreme at that point.
And the media on the left, using the lies of this case that they've put out, tried to make it seem like I was saying that it was a good thing or something, that a white supremacist was targeting black people.
Those are the lies they played.
Now these people are waking up.
What I was saying was that this young kid who should not have been there, and I said that, was attacked by extremists and defended himself.
And when the media lied, Try and destroy people's lives.
I realized that we really do need a counter-movement, Donald Trump or otherwise, to stop the evil.
And Trump is a terrible avatar for this.
But he had policies that I thought were important, notably banning critical race theory in the federal level and trainings and things like that.
Now we know the truth.
But for many on the left, it doesn't matter.
The cult doesn't care.
They want to see the system burn, and so they'll riot.
Maybe not.
I don't know.
But the police certainly expect it, so I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Join us for the live show, and I'll see you all there.
Progressives are demanding a mistrial in the Kyle Rittenhouse case because the judge's phone rang and it played the song, God Bless the USA.
And that may be the clearest sign that this country is screwed and we are heading in a dark place.
And I believe the dissolution of this country is inevitable.
I know it's kind of a big leap from judge's phone plays ringtone to the end is nigh, but let me explain.
The judge is a boomer.
I believe he's in his 70s.
He has been fair.
He has been reasonable.
He has not given the defense everything they've wanted.
He's criticized the prosecution for very obvious and egregious violations, and any fair person who believes in our legal system and the American system of governance would agree that the judge is actually being quite fair.
In fact, on one of the questions pertaining to Kyle Rittenhouse's guilt, the possession of a firearm, I actually believe the judge is being unfair.
But I think this shows that the judge is not biased in favor of anybody.
The question is, as it pertains to the gun charge, there is an exception in the statute, a section of the law, 3C, which states that there is an exception if an individual is not in compliance with certain other statutes.
To simplify, The basic language of the gun charge Kyle Rittenhouse faces is possession of a dangerous weapon by someone under the age of 18.
On the surface, if the judge just hands that off to the jury, the jury will say, clear cut, Kyle Rittenhouse shouldn't have had a gun.
But there's a question of law the judge is supposed to answer.
And it pertains to exceptions which state something having to do with being under the age of 16.
To put it simply, I can't tell you exactly what the law is trying to say, and even some legal analysts that I've been reading can't tell you exactly what the law is trying to say, just that the judge needs to determine if these exceptions apply to Kyle Rittenhouse before just handing it off to the jury.
To put it simply, it doesn't seem he's doing that, in which case, I actually think he's being rather unfair.
The full law and all of its statutes should be read to the jury, not just the basic first language, the simple answer.
But, Kyle Rittenhouse may end up getting convicted on that misdemeanor charge, and I think it shows the judge is not trying to help the defense.
That being said, progressives are claiming that simply because his phone rang and the song God Bless the USA played, he's clearly biased.
They're saying that from the get-go we've known he's been biased.
Well, he won't let the prosecutors refer to those who got shot as victims.
And why won't he do that?
Well, according to progressives who want this mistrial, it's because he's biased.
People are tweeting things like, oh, the judge is clearly acting as the defense attorney for Kyle Rittenhouse.
But let me explain something very simple to anybody who understands what happened here.
Everyone knows Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed two people and shot a third person.
That is not up for debate.
That is not at question in this trial.
If it were, then perhaps you could refer to these individuals as the alleged victims.
What's at question in this trial is whether or not these people were victims.
The reason the judge said you can't call these three individuals victims is because we're trying to determine who was the perpetrator.
If Kyle Rittenhouse was the perpetrator, as determined by the jury, Then these people are victims.
If Kyle Rittenhouse is the victim, then these people were the perpetrators.
That is what the jury is deciding.
To put it very simply, the left wants the judge to rule, before the trial even started, that Kyle Rittenhouse is guilty and has no self-defense claim.
It's nonsensical arguments meant to just be tribalist.
And it's reflected in a lot of the comments from some of these leftist pundits.
One video shows a clip where the prosecutor asks of Kyle Rittenhouse, Gage Grosskreutz is one of the criminals who attacked Kyle Rittenhouse, and I'll be overt and just say it.
Kyle Rittenhouse is on the ground.
Gage Grosskreutz, with no knowledge of why or what happened, has already drawn his pistol and is advancing on Kyle Rittenhouse.
One leftist pundit, The Decent Following, said this proves Kyle Rittenhouse is guilty, because the state said, He has a pistol.
You have a rifle.
How is it that he is a threat to you, but you are not a threat to him?
Which is completely irrelevant and immaterial to the question at hand.
Rittenhouse responds, I had been attacked by several people and he ran at me with a gun.
The issue is, further in the testimony, Rittenhouse clarifies the image you're displaying that shows, so they showed an image of Kyle Rittenhouse and the gun is aimed at the legs of Gage Grosskreutz.
He's the guy who got shot in the arm.
Rittenhouse says, this is a still frame.
If you actually play the video, you'll see I'm lowering my weapon.
And that is a fact.
You see, what happens is, you have people who don't follow the trial, and are just looking for any excuse.
And this says to me, this country is absolutely effed.
The judge is a boomer.
You know what that means?
I think one of the main reasons the culture war has been escalating so dramatically over the past several years is not because more and more people are joining the fray.
It's because millennials hold these views.
They don't believe in this country.
They don't believe in our system of laws.
For the most part, not every millennial.
Obviously, I'm a millennial.
I'm saying a large portion.
The ideological split among millennials is massive.
So what's happened?
Back in the early 2010s, with the rise of GamerGate, you had interns, individuals just getting their first job at news organizations, at blogs, writing culture war issues.
And what did they talk about?
They talked about video games.
Over the past 10 years, these individuals went from being entry-level hires, to mid-level managers, to editors-in-chief.
I mean, now we're talking about people who went, they were 22 writing about culture war issues, and now they're 32.
These people run departments now.
These people are becoming prosecutors.
These people are becoming lawyers.
So what happens?
The ideology among Millennials is not that every Millennial is an extremist.
It's that Millennials are absolutely split far away from each other and probably due to the internet and social media.
What's holding the country together right now is Gen X and Boomers.
With all their problems, mind you.
There are problems among those generations as well.
But Boomers, for the most part, if you look back at Pew Research and you look at where People were politically.
Boomers overlapped politically.
Democrat and conservative in the 90s to a great degree.
Gen Xers, who were coming of age basically in the early 90s, eventually start taking over in the 2000s and still very much agree with each other.
That's why Howard Stern was saying racial slurs and everyone thought it was funny.
They all basically agreed enough that it was mainstream acceptable for Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Fallon, I believe Fallon, Sarah Silverman, Howard Stern, to do something like blackface.
Among Millennials, you have the following generation.
These are people who...
Understand edgy humor and offensive comedy.
They like Dave Chappelle.
And then you have the other sect of millennials that are the cult.
These are people who are ideologically driven, who will lie, cheat, and steal, who don't believe in authority, who don't believe in the United States, who think the country is evil and want to watch it burn.
Gage Grosskreutz, for instance, was at a rally where he held his fist up and said, long live the revolution.
He does not care for the authority of the courts, he doesn't believe in the authority of the courts, and he has publicly expressed his desire to remove the authority from the courts.
So of course when he goes in and testifies, it will be in bad faith.
The prosecutor is the exact same way.
So what you need to understand, that prosecutor will become a judge.
In the Kyle Rittenhouse case, the prosecutor who questioned Kyle Rittenhouse for remaining silent, it was so shocking to anybody who cares about our legal system, that even the judge yelled, I was astonished that you would question the defendant's pre-trial silence!
It is a matter of basic law for 40, 50 years!
And this judge is in his 70s.
So perhaps, His ringtone is God bless the USA.
And I'm proud to be an American.
You know the song.
Donald Trump plays it at his rallies.
The left is saying that's cause for a mistrial.
Meaning the judge should be recused.
There should be an entirely new trial because the judge is biased.
And you know what?
Well, they're not completely wrong about the judge being biased.
I think this ringtone proves the judge will be biased in favor of the left.
And this is our Achilles heel and it is the weakness of this country.
The left likes to show you that Karl Popper meme, which is grossly out of context, by the way, but for those not familiar, it's called the Paradox of Intolerance.
In this comic.
Karl Popper, as a little cartoon figure, mentions that if you tolerate intolerance, the intolerant win, and tolerance gets destroyed.
To put it simply, they use Nazis as an example.
They say that if a Nazi comes out and expresses a desire for authoritarianism, and a civil society says we must protect free speech and let them speak, over time the intolerant will gain more power, silence those who oppose them, and in the end, all that will be left are the intolerant.
That's not completely wrong.
The issue we're facing right now, this judge believes in the American legal system.
The American legal system affords the right to a fair trial, the powers of the state and the defense.
Typically we err on the side of the defendants, but in many ways the state gets their advantages as well.
The state has committed gross prosecutorial misconduct.
The judge himself said you have engaged in grave constitutional violations and yet he allows the trial to persist.
Therein lies the problem.
A man who believes in America, and I absolutely respect that because I do too, Who's in his 70s.
Who says, God bless the USA.
He wants to show that trials work and they're fair.
The problem is, it doesn't matter if the jury finds Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty.
The left has made up their mind and they lie.
Take a look at this from Richard Ojeda.
This is the guy that we actually all championed because he was like a moderate Democrat from West Virginia, and we were like, this is the kind of guy, you know, a regular working-class guy, and look what he does.
The evil, the depravity, or the sheer ignorance.
Richard Ojeda tweeted, well, well, well.
The bombshell video shows Rittenhouse chasing Rosenbaum while wielding an assault rifle, not the other way around, as the suspect's legal team has claimed.
Overtly fake.
I don't know where it came from.
In the absence of evidence, the solution that makes the least amount of assumptions tends to be the correct one.
I think it's fair to say Richard Ojeda just saw this post somewhere and reposted it.
I don't think he made it because I don't think he has the wherewithal to produce something like this, but I can't make assumptions.
All I can say is Richard Ojeda has posted completely false information.
There is no video showing Rittenhouse chasing anybody.
There is clear-cut evidence, witness testimony, video testimony, and acknowledgement by the state that Rosenbaum was chasing Kyle Rittenhouse.
But this post has 4,373 retweets, and everyone who follows Richard Ojeda believes it.
So the judge, somebody who believes in a fair trial, has the ability, and perhaps he will, to say mistrial with prejudice because the state broke our sacred rules and our constitutional rights.
And if he really did believe in America, he would say, I will not allow a prosecution to persist that violates the Constitution.
Instead, so far what we've gotten is, if you do it one more time, Because the judge is a good judge and he believes in this country and that means for the sake of the public and for what this case represents, he wants the jury to issue their findings.
That means that even though the prosecutor has committed grave constitutional violations, the judge will not intervene.
Maybe he will, in the end.
Maybe he'll say, the state has overstepped on numerous occasions, violating my rulings, and in this country, if you do not get a fair trial, then you cannot prosecute, persecute this individual.
That would be the most American thing in my opinion.
But the judge is concerned about the shape of this nation.
At least that's my perspective of him.
And that's why he said, I'll take the motion to dismiss.
The defense said, we want a mistrial with prejudice.
Meaning they can't retrial Kyle Reynolds after the fact.
The judge said, I'll take it under advisement.
Perhaps the defense will come forward with a formal motion.
But I think there is, even among the defense, a desire to have a jury acquit Kyle Rittenhouse.
I think that's what they hope will be the cleanest out for him.
And they think they're looking at an innocence verdict, meaning they're looking at not guilty on all counts across the board.
The defense is quite happy with this.
But a mistrial with prejudice throws everything out.
That means even the gun charge, and he can't be tried again for any of these charges.
Now, why I think this country is going to fall apart, as I stated earlier, when you have the left, people like Richard Ojeda, West Virginia Democrat, West Virginia!
I live in West Virginia.
It's shocking to me.
Willing to lie overtly for power.
They don't care to look at the trial.
They don't care to follow the facts.
Richard Ojeda, in my opinion, his only goal, and the reason why this is either ignorance or depravity, is if he truly cared about the shape of this nation and the lives of these individuals and justice.
He'd actually watch some of that trial.
He'd actually Google search that video and try to see if it's true.
Richard Ojeda doesn't care about that.
All he cares about is pursuing the narrative, pursuing power.
When this judge leaves, and people like A.D.A.
Binger or Krauss, truly depraved individuals, become judges, and they likely will, they will act politically and ideologically.
Now, I don't think these, I think these guys are Xennials, they're likely Gen X, they're a little bit older, I don't think they're Millennial, maybe I'm wrong, but I think they're a little bit older.
As these people continue to gain power, as, for instance, George Soros provided a lot of funding for district attorneys, Jussie Smollett, for instance, we know that story.
I don't think people realize how generational power works.
Why is it that certain things were different in the 90s and the 2000s and today?
Because older people age out, younger people age in.
Millennials are split between the psychotic ideological communist and race left and more libertarian.
I don't believe there are many conservative millennials.
I believe it is a very, very small amount.
I believe for the most part you have libertarians and then you have the cult.
When it comes to the QAnon people and Donald Trump's cult, the people who die hard supporters, they're all fairly older.
Millennials tend to be freedom-oriented or absolutely cult authoritarian.
I saw a meme from Existentialist Comics and they said, capitalism began in the 16th century and the capitalists went on to commit genocides and enslave people.
We're told communism is bad because of a famine.
And that's the kind of dangerous and psychotic ideology that is prevalent among the cult.
Communism and capitalism have their problems.
Both of them do.
Any honest person can tell you that an ideology taken to its extreme end will be very, very bad.
The selling of people.
Now you'll get a lot of modern capitalists saying that slavery is not a free market because you're literally enslaving people, but that's neither here nor there.
Taken to its logical extreme, people of power and means will do corrupt things.
That's why all ideologies can lead to dark places.
We're told communism is bad not because of a famine.
Because of a forced famine.
Because the Soviets committed the Holodomor.
Because they were stealing the food from Ukrainians they deemed to be genetic lessers.
It is psychotic.
Communists seize the means of production from those capable of producing and give it to people without the skills resulting in famines.
The Soviet Union invaded many countries.
They invaded Poland.
They killed many hundreds of millions, hundred plus million people.
It's all bad.
Authoritarianism and ideological extremism are bad.
Decentralization is what protects our rights.
So what is going to happen when cult members, and to put it simply, people who are uninterested in facts and reason, what happens when they inherit the reins of power because they seek it?
And when liberty-minded people say, I don't want to be the boss and I don't want to be the president, you can damn well expect that in the next 10 to 15 years we will have an authoritarian regime in this country.
It's already starting to happen.
This judge has done things I think are unfair, but I think for the most part, he is unbiased.
Because if he was biased, he'd actually say the gun charge is out, because of the exceptions, as a matter of law.
He would have issued a directed verdict as soon as they said Gage Grosskreutz, as soon as Gage Grosskreutz admitted he pointed a gun at Kyle Rittenhouse.
The judge could say, you have charged this man Rittenhouse with intentional homicide.
That is to say, he went to this event seeking to cause death.
He yelled friendly and ran away, and it was only after his gun was grabbed, it was only after he was hit in the head with a skateboard twice, and it was only after a man pointed a gun at him that he fired in self-defense.
The judge, as a matter of law, could say, it's not an issue for the jury, the law clearly states it's not intentional homicide, and he could issue a directed verdict on those counts.
He's not doing it.
Because this is perhaps one of the problems with boomers.
He believes in fairness, and I respect it.
He wants the jury system to play its course, to show that a jury can decide.
And maybe he'll intervene, I don't know.
But this is one of the problems we have with the older generation that allows the cult, and the communists, and the Marxists, the extremists, and whatever you want to call them, to gain more and more power, and eventually destroy the system itself.
Gage Grosskreutz is suing the government.
It's either the police department or the city.
He's got a $10 million lawsuit.
If Kyle Reynolds is convicted, he's going to win that lawsuit.
They'll settle.
If Kyle Rittenhouse is acquitted, he is a perpetrator and he will get nothing.
In fact, Gage Grosskreutz should have been criminally charged for illegal possession of a concealed firearm and for attacking Kyle Rittenhouse.
He wasn't.
These people are corrupt.
They go on the stand and they lie.
And I will say as a statement of fact, Gage Grosskreutz lied on the stand several times.
And the prosecution had to call out the lies.
Most egregious of which was when the prosecution played a video showing Gage Grosskreutz with a pistol in his hand and he said, so at this point you've drawn your pistol.
And Grosskreutz goes, no.
And the video was right there in front of the jury.
And the prosecutor says, in the video you're holding a gun.
And Grosskreutz goes, yes.
He was not being honest, not acting in good faith.
Why?
Gage Grosskreutz is a revolutionary who hates America.
And I think it's maybe cliche to say, but no, no, no.
He actually said, with his fist in the air at a rally, long live the revolution.
We as Americans, We tolerate fair trials for people who hate the system and want to tear it down.
Last night, Jack Murphy asked me, do you think that the 9-11 terrorists should have been given a fair trial?
I said, yes.
Absolutely.
Why?
Because the prosecutors and the defense both believe in our legal system.
The problem we're facing now is that our judge, who is a good, this judge here in the case, seems to be a good man.
Is giving the benefit of the doubt to a prosecutor, a prosecutor who does not believe in our system of governance, who violated the constitutional rights in front of everybody, of Kyle Rittenhouse, and even the judge acknowledged it, who entered into evidence what the judge had already deemed inadmissible.
He does not care for our system.
He seeks only power If you have a legal system that respects our way of life and our laws and our judicial system, then we give a fair trial to everybody.
But when you have a prosecutor who is politically aligned with the cult, seeking only to win, the system is collapsing.
And I'll tell you this, the system has been collapsing for a long time.
Long have we had a legal system in which prosecutors don't care to actually seek justice.
They're supposed to.
But they don't.
And I've experienced it myself.
We have only a system of churn and burn.
Bring them in, plead them guilty, get the F out of my courtroom.
There's too many people, there's too many cases, there's too many crimes, there's too many laws, and prosecutors just don't care anymore.
So a good judge can only last so long.
This judge will eventually retire, and soon.
And people like Binger will become the judge.
And then he'll say, I don't care about what is true, correct, and fair.
I care about my political ideology and my feelings.
So my prediction is, within the next ten years, as millennials become judges, become senators, become members of Congress, and they are, they will seek to burn and destroy I'll tell you this.
Even if strong-minded, freedom-loving individuals like you or I were to run for office, the fact remains that Millennials are so far apart politically that eventually there will be right-leaning Millennials and left-leaning Millennials in Congress, and they will be so at odds with each other, a caning will occur.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe Gen Z steps in and tells all the Millennials to shut up because you're dumb.
But I'm not convinced.
Because Gen Z, while to a certain degree is more conservative than Millennials, that's only because conservative Gen Xers had children.
That's it.
It's hard to predict exactly what will happen in the future, but I'll put it simply.
The math, in my opinion, shows that as millennials age into power and take the reins from these institutions, they will burn them to the ground.
So we'll see.
We'll see what the judge rules, if there'll be a mistrial.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse is currently ongoing.
But outside of the trial, I think it's important that we understand the context of what's happening in this country and what's been happening in this country.
That fateful night in Kenosha wasn't the first night of conflict.
It had been going on for some time.
And Kyle Rittenhouse and several others went out because buildings had been torched.
People had been gravely injured.
And it wasn't just happening in Kenosha.
It was happening all over the country.
Then it still will, and very likely, soon, for a variety of reasons.
If Cal Rittenhouse is found not guilty on the murder charges, rest assured people will riot, perhaps across the country.
Now, that being said, it is winter, and these rioters don't like going out in inclement weather because, well, we've heard of them as fair weather activists.
They only go out when the temperature is right, it's not raining, and this is a fact.
Often when it rains, protests don't happen.
Because who wants to go stand in the rain?
It's typically when it is dark out and it is 70 or so degrees that people are comfortable to go outside and run them up.
So maybe winter will deter any potential riots.
But we have a story here from the New York Post.
Black Lives Matter leader threatens riots, fire, bloodshed if New York City Eric Adams gets tough on crime.
Specifically, there was an anti-crime unit.
And since the dissolution of this anti-crime unit, crime has been spiking.
Here's Fox 5 New York.
Violent crime continues to surge in New York City from November 3rd.
They say while the NYPD touts a drop in shootings and murders, newly released crime stats show continuing growth in other violent crimes, including felony assaults and robberies.
Grand larceny cases also continue to rise.
The overall crime rate in New York City was up 11.2% in October.
Compared to a year ago.
The number of robberies jumped 15.8%, and felonious assaults increased by 13.8% year over year.
Grand larceny and auto thefts were also up sharply in October.
Compared to the same period last year, auto thefts are up almost 15% for the year versus 2020.
Gun arrests have jumped 13.9%, burglaries 13.7%.
The men and women of the NYPD have never wavered in their commitment to the collective public safety of all New Yorkers.
That's a lie!
Let me just stress, when the NYPD came out, by the dozens, to defend an illegal political painting that de Blasio put in the street.
So, spare me you feigning your nobility.
The NYPD is just a group of people who do what they're told.
That's a lot of good NYPD, that's true.
Many NYPD who refuse to uphold unconstitutional restrictions and mandates.
But how many of these government actors, namely police officers, blindly march behind the illegal edicts and actions of someone as corrupt as Bill de Blasio?
Too many.
They go on to say, while their devotion to service is commendable, effective crime fighting is predicated upon a collaborative effort from all aspects of our criminal justice landscape, as well as society as a whole.
Additionally, our brave officers' work must be reinforced by meaningful consequences that send a consequential message to those who find themselves on the path towards criminality.
To put it simply, crime's on the rise.
The police are basically saying, don't look at us, society has kind of fallen apart, and they're not wrong.
Back at the New York Post, they report, a Black Lives Matter leader vowed there will be riots, fire, and bloodshed if mayor-elect Eric Adams follows through with his promise to bring back plainclothes anti-crime cops to battle New York's surge in violent crimes.
New York Black Lives Matter co-founder Hank Newsom debated the plan for a return to tougher policing with Adams during a contentious sit-down at Brooklyn Borough Hall Wednesday that was live-streamed on Instagram.
Although Adams found common ground with the activists on plans to fight poverty in the black community, the former NYPD captain said he'll be reinstating a revamped version of the undercover anti-crime unit that was disbanded at the height of widespread police protests last year.
Quote, If they think they're going back to the old ways of policing, then we're going to take to the streets again, New York BLM co-founder Hank Newsom said outside Borough Hall after the meeting.
There will be riots, there will be fire, and there will be bloodshed, he threatened.
And let me stress to all of you, This is not one of those media mis-framings where someone says, and this happens a lot, they'll say something like, hey, if you do this, people are gonna riot.
That's not a threat.
That's a statement of fact.
That's basically saying people will react a certain way to a negative action.
Let me explain to you what Hank Newsom said.
And you know what?
I've given this guy respect.
I've complimented him many times.
This, I think, is up to the line.
He says, we are going to take to the streets again.
We.
And when he says, we will take to the streets and there will be riots, fire, and bloodshed, he is threatening you.
This is what we've been dealing with.
This is exactly why Kyle Rittenhouse is on trial.
He shouldn't have been there.
It's a fact.
Kyle Rittenhouse should not have been there, for a variety of reasons.
Now, I know there's an argument over the gun possession, and it seems that he does fall under an exception, but we don't know exactly what the legislature meant by their exception, other than the law seems to exempt him.
He shouldn't have been there.
He shouldn't have had the rifle.
He shouldn't have been on the ground.
And I understand why he was.
Because the police weren't doing anything.
Because the feds weren't doing anything.
Because the riots had been ongoing and people got fed up and said enough.
And so they showed up.
Local militia.
Basically a group of individuals who banded together and brought first aid kits and weapons to try and maintain some semblance of order.
A man in his 70s I believe, I believe that's his age, but a man was cracked over the back of the skull with a rock by a rioter and left bleeding on the ground.
And where were the police?
The police could have came in and dispersed the crowd, the police could have made arrests, and instead they just stayed back, like they often do.
So what ends up happening is that some locals get together and say, we're gonna try and keep this place safe.
Kyle Rittenhouse was, his life was threatened, and he was chased by two men, not just Rosenbaum, but another man, Zeminski, who fired a gun into the air while Rittenhouse was being chased.
The trial's ongoing.
But what do you think is going to happen when you see these videos?
Now, I tweeted out a video.
I don't have it pulled up.
It shows a group of individuals robbing a store, filling up shopping carts, and just throwing all these groceries and laundry detergent into their trucks.
And people are saying, don't do anything, you'll get fired.
Don't do anything.
A society like this can't function.
The culture is broken.
And what we see in San Francisco with people going into stores and just dumping all of the goods into bags and leaving shows you our culture has already collapsed.
Well, to be fair, we're looking at the foundations.
They have been eroded to such a degree that the building, our institutions, are struggling to remain standing.
I will take you back in time.
We didn't see a lot of stuff like this back in time, but we did see political, you know, ideological violence.
We did see mass protests, and this is when culture was, you know, at odds.
Culture wars.
Various moments throughout history.
But for the most part, we all agreed on certain rules.
We all agreed on, you know, our concern for society as a whole.
There are people who commit crimes because they don't respect society.
They don't feel that they're a part of it.
They feel they're outside of it.
But for a long time, a lot of people felt like they were a part of society.
Like, why won't I rob that person?
Because I have scruples.
Because people know who I am.
Because it could be bad.
We don't have that anymore.
I mean, everything is just breaking down.
I'll stress this point.
Rodney King.
Video emerges of him being beaten by police, and they riot in LA.
They riot to an extreme degree.
Today, we get video after video of rioters destroying and smashing things.
No one will do anything.
Trump could have invoked the Insurrection Act.
He didn't.
He could have sent in the military to try and secure these cities.
He didn't do it.
They did it during the LA riots.
Not now.
Because there's no political willpower, not even among Trump, that when the riots break out, no one does anything.
And so you end up with vigilantes.
You end up with local militias.
Going on, they say, quote, To ignore that history and say you're bringing it back means that he's tone-deaf, Newsom told the Post over the phone about the task force whose officers were involved in the deaths of Amadou Diallo, Sean Bell, and Eric Garner.
Adam's Threatous Campaign promised to bring back a reinvented version of the Anti-Crime Unit that was tasked with firearms busts, as well as a crackdown on violent crime and hard drugs.
The controversial unit was dissolved in June 2020 by Police Commissioner Dermot Shea, following a disproportionate number of high-profile incidents that involved the plain-clothes cops.
Former officer Danielle Pantaleo was assigned to the Anti-Crime Unit when he placed Eric Garner into a chokehold on Staten Island, with the man's last words, I can't breathe, becoming a rallying cry for the BLM movement.
The BLM leader said that he was troubled Adams didn't offer a comment on police reform.
He wouldn't offer us anything concrete during their sit-down.
I'll explain to you all, my friends, the scaling problem.
You have 10 plus million people coming in and out of New York every single day.
2.5 on Manhattan Island alone.
I believe it's down a little bit because people are moving out.
Of those millions of people in New York City proper, How many high-profile stories have we seen?
The NYPD, they came out when they were being attacked, politically, and said that out of, what was it, 375 million police interactions, there are a small handful of very negative incidents.
Eric Garner, for instance, there was only a handful in New York.
When you have the scaling problem, for those that aren't familiar, and I mention it a lot because I think it's an important concept across the board, especially, you know, talking about vaccines or otherwise.
If a hundred people are given a smartphone and 1% of those phones break, that's one phone.
One person comes out and says, my phone broke, and people say, well, doesn't seem like a whole lot of phones breaking.
No one really cares.
It's a malfunction, right?
100 million phones are given out.
1% break.
The same proportion.
But now there are a million people all over the internet screaming and saying, what is wrong with these phones?
And it seems to people that all of the phones are bad.
That's what's happening with police, and that's why we face very serious consequences moving forward.
There will always be negative police interactions.
There will always be accidents.
But when you have a social media apparatus that can take a disproportionate amount of accidents, compile them all together, And make it seem like police are going around hunting down black people, then you will end up with people threatening violence, and you will get that violence.
And then when the police can't handle the incessant insanity, vigilantes will emerge.
The BLM leader said, we will be at his front door.
We will be at Gracie Mansion.
We will be in the streets if he allows these police to abuse us.
I am not threatening anyone.
I am just saying that it's a natural response to aggressive oppression.
People will react.
Except he mentioned, we will do this.
In a statement to the Post, Adam said that there is no reason we cannot have both safe streets and racial justice in our city.
What does that even mean?
You see, they have no answers.
None of it makes sense.
Racial justice.
Stop voting for Democrats, maybe.
Stop voting in the same people over and over again.
But they don't.
They keep voting for the same people, then they complain about the people they voted for, and then they vote for them again.
Then they try to get federal legislation passed, and they push their cult ideology garbage on people who don't want to have anything to do with their psychotic delusions.
There's racism in this country.
But guess what?
Through statute, we have eliminated the legal racial injustice.
Because it's real.
Because it existed.
Now we have nebulous cultural concepts being pushed by these people.
Oh, that police officer is racist.
Why?
Because the person he arrested was black or brown.
Could it have been that that person simply broke the law?
You know, I think culture plays a way bigger role than race.
But the issue I have is that when they say racial justice, they have no explanation for what that means in any logic, in any reality.
They simply say things that aren't true.
They claim that police are hunting down black people.
When we have the stats from 2019 and it was like 12.
Out of hundreds of millions of interactions with police, 12 unarmed black men were shot and killed, and they should not have been.
Each and every one of those instances is a tragedy, and there must be justice for that, for those individuals.
But this is the scaling problem.
The more people you have, the more police you have, the more police interactions you have, the more you will see these moments.
It doesn't mean the institutions are corrupt.
Though mostly they are, I would say.
But it doesn't mean they're all racist.
It doesn't mean the system does not work.
It means there is a margin of failure.
And if you want to get to the point where there's zero margin of failure, I commend that goal, but I'm not convinced it's possible because bad humans exist.
Let me bring you to your future, my friends.
Let me show you your future.
Do I have this?
Here we go.
Here it is.
From TimCast.com.
LAPD tells residents to cooperate and comply with robbers amid rise in burglaries.
This is the future you will get under Black Lives Matter, under woke-ism.
We watch the videos of them loot and burn, walking in a store, stealing whatever they want, and no one can do anything to stop them.
Because the police won't.
They don't want a riot.
Because culture and society is breaking down.
When you have large enough groups of people that will flash mob, that will riot, because someone committed a crime, well, the police won't be able to enforce those laws anymore.
And so what do they tell you to do?
Comply.
Just give in.
It's the craziest thing.
I remember growing up in Chicago, and I would see these signs, they would, you know, I don't know if they were signs, but the message was always from police, if someone is robbing you or mugging you, just give them whatever they want.
And that always pissed me off.
Because I thought to myself, if all of the signs said, if all of the narratives pushed out said, if you try, if someone is going to mug you, Shoot them in self-defense.
If someone is putting you in reasonable fear of losing your life, shoot them in self-defense.
If every message was, the moment someone tries to mug you, attack them.
Defend yourself.
Then what do you think would happen with crime?
Right now in Chicago, and this is horrifying in other parts of the country, this is what happens.
Criminals are emboldened.
They know that no one will stop them.
They know that people are told to drop to their knees.
So they walk up to people and they say, do as you're told or else.
And guess what most people do?
They do as they're told.
I was never that kind of person.
Uh, never.
I mean, watch the video of me in Boston with Antifa when the guy gets in my face and starts swinging at me, and I just don't move.
I just tighten my abs, clench to my jaw, and it stood my ground.
I'm not gonna walk away.
I don't care who you think you are.
These people only get away with it because other people are scared.
I'm not... I don't know what these people think they can do to me.
In Chicago, I once got mugged.
And I told the guy to shove off.
He was like, I know you're hiding money in your shoe, and I started laughing.
And I just kept walking.
I'm like, bro, take my- what are you gonna do?
You know what I mean?
My attitude to them always was, I don't care if you have a gun, I don't care if you have a knife.
If you come up to me, and demand something from me, you will get a fight.
A very serious one.
And you better be ready to kill me.
You know the funny thing about growing up in Chicago that way?
Rarely was I ever subjected to any kind of mugging or crime in a city with extremely high crime.
Because whenever people would get near me, I'd... I'd react particularly negatively.
And the one time someone tried to mug me...
I just told him to shove off.
Now, to be fair, in that instance, an anti-crime unit emerged from the shadows.
I mean this literally.
A guy was trying to mug me, telling me to do the right thing because he didn't want to have to hurt me, and he was carrying a knife, and I just laughed and ignored him and kept walking.
Literally just kept walking.
And then, all of a sudden, a plainclothes officer grabbed him and slammed him up against a wrought iron fence and screamed, NOT IN MY TOWN!
Legit happened.
No joke.
Serious story.
I always felt like people who get victimized are people who are victims.
People who appeared scared and unwilling to stand up for themselves.
And I think about it from any predatorial perspective.
A criminal is going to seek out the path of least resistance.
What we get now, LAPD telling you just give in, just cooperate, just drop to your knees.
Not me.
Not me.
Now look, I don't want to hurt anybody.
If I have the ability to retreat in a conflict, I will.
To avoid, you know, anyone getting harmed.
You'll understand this in any martial art, in anyone who teaches about fighting, the fight you avoid is the fight you've won.
So if someone breaks into my house, and I do have the ability to get out safely without killing or harming somebody, I will do my best.
Even though, in many states, particularly where I live, I have Castle Doctrine.
That being said, for the most part, the safest place I could be is in my own home, where I know where everything is, where I have the ability to defend myself.
What that means is, if someone is trying to commit a burglary in my home, and they are armed, I will defend myself and others and not allow them just to come in.
Going out into the cold and the wilderness is not necessarily the safest position for me.
And that being said as well, for all I know this person has accomplices who are outside waiting to try and catch anybody who flees.
In which case, the best thing you can do is defend your home, call the police.
In LA, they say just cooperate.
Why?
Well, because people aren't armed.
Out in West Virginia, we're armed to the teeth.
If you would like to commit a serious crime, threatening my life or anyone else's, in a state where we are all constitutionally carrying, please don't.
Please do not.
Because I don't want to have to hurt anybody or ever be in a situation like that.
And I will always do my best to avoid causing harm.
But if you threaten my life, And I am put in a position where I have a choice of dying or living.
I'll choose living.
If everybody behaved that way, if everybody had that attitude, crime would be gone.
People in Chicago would be like, I'm not committing a crime.
That person's gonna crack me over the face with, you know, who knows what.
Instead, in these big cities, they say, bend the knee.
In the bigger picture, with Black Lives Matter, with all the crime and everything we've seen, the police aren't prosecuting criminals like Gage Grosskreutz.
A man who showed up to a riot with a gun he was not legally allowed to possess.
Again, I'm not a fan of the law, but he wasn't charged for what was a clear statutory legal violation.
Criminal act.
These people are emboldened.
They know.
They have the media on their sides, politicians on their side, and they know that the police are told to stand down.
You will get more crime, violence, and rioting.
And this, my friends, is why you end up with a Kyle Rittenhouse situation.
A terrible situation that shouldn't have happened.
I don't think Kyle Rittenhouse should have been out there.
I think that is important to state.
But I understand why he was.
Because the police have stopped doing what they're supposed to do.
Instead, they defend Black Lives Matter murals that the mayor illegally paints in the street.
A lot of good cops quit.
And the bad cops remain.
And they don't uphold the law.
Instead, it's Kyle Rittenhouse on the stand.
He was attacked by three criminals.
Violently assaulted.
Those people should be on the stand.
This is your future, my friends, because millennials will take over, and this is what they will bring.
