S5225 - Rittenhouse WINS BIG VICTORY, Gun Charge DISMISSED Before Closing Arguments In Rittenhouse Trial
Rittenhouse WINS BIG VICTORY, Gun Charge DISMISSED Before Closing Arguments In Rittenhouse Trial. Democrat activists and leftists were shocked and confused because they have been reading fake news.
As more and more information comes to light showing that Kyle Rittenhouse was legally armed and acting in self defense the narrative of the corrupt media and establishment Democrats is exposed
Closing arguments in the Rittenhouse Trial are underway and a verdict has not yet been reached.
#Rittenhouse
#BLMRiots
#RittenhouseTrial
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, Kyle Rittenhouse wins a major victory when the judge dismisses count six, the gun charge.
The law clearly states, well, maybe not so clearly, but as a 17 year old, he was exempt and allowed to carry that rifle.
In our next story, Austria is enforcing a lockdown only for the unvaccinated, meaning stay-at-home orders.
In our last story, this is an earlier analysis on the Kyle Rittenhouse case that may be slightly out of date but still has very important arguments on CGI evidence that I'm going to keep it at the end of the segment.
Because the Kyle Rittenhouse story is developing, I wanted to make sure that I was getting out segments on YouTube as fast as possible that were relevant, but it may mean that the end of this podcast might be a little irrelevant, but probably has some good things you'll want to hear, so I'll leave that one in.
Before we get started, leave us a good review, give us five stars, tell your friends about the show.
Thank you all so much for listening.
Let's get into that first story.
The judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse case has just handed a major victory to the defense.
On count six, the gun charge, possession of a deadly weapon by a person under the age of 18, the judge has dismissed the charge outright.
Further, on the CGI evidence, it seems the judge was on the verge of tossing it out But we'll allow it so long as the jury is instructed not to use it as sole evidence.
Suffice to say, the prosecution has entered CGI imagery, not evidence, and they're claiming it is, and this is the basis of their entire closing argument.
Now, the reason Kyle Reynolds got the gun charge dismissed is because the law does not apply to individuals who are 16 or 17.
To put it simply, The law was crafted.
There was probably some amendments as they were drafting it.
It may be that it was intentionally or unintentionally unclear, but the gun charged.
Kyle Rittenhouse is allowed to keep and bear a weapon so long as he is 16 or 17, so long as it is not a short-barreled rifle, and that the prosecution conceded.
Judge threw it out.
Now, this is important.
This basically shows that the secondary argument we're getting from people on the left is out the window.
I've heard many of these intellectual leftist types, people I know, argue, well, perhaps the video does show Rosenbaum chasing after him, perhaps there are several witnesses saying that Rosenbaum threatened Rittenhouse, but You cannot claim self-defense while you are in the process of committing a crime, which apparently isn't true to begin with, but their argument is that because Kyle Rittenhouse was illegally in possession of a weapon, nothing at that point could be self-defense.
Committed a crime.
Well, now we have a definitive statement from the judge.
The charge was dismissed as a question of law.
You cannot be charged with a crime you cannot be charged with.
To put it quite simply, this means Kyle Rittenhouse was legally bearing an AR-15 style rifle chambered in .223 as he legally walked around his town.
That's the important takeaway.
They say he crossed state lines on a legal weapon.
That's what Ben and Jerry's tried claiming this morning, and that's not true.
Kyle Rittenhouse was in Kenosha, the town where he works, in a place that he stated he's driven past almost every single day, where his aunt, uncle, dad, cousins, all his family live.
When they say he crossed state lines, what they mean to say is he lives basically in a suburb of Kenosha.
When you live close to the border, yeah, you might cross state lines.
The reality is, the underlying claim made by the left is now out the window.
So what does ADA binger, the prosecutor, have left?
Lies and contradiction.
And this is the craziest thing to me.
Okay, okay.
Maybe he's not lying.
Maybe he's just wrong and doesn't know the law.
But right now, I've got a lot to show you.
First, people are big mad.
And the media is lying about the gun charge in very ridiculous ways, and of course they've always been smearing Kyle Rittenhouse.
But I want to show you a bit of the closing arguments.
As I am recording this video, closing arguments are currently underway.
The prosecution is making their case, and in doing so, directly contradicting the judge, which apparently they're allowed to do.
And presenting outright falsehoods.
I'll be careful not to say they're lying, because, well, as much as I personally believe the prosecutor is lying to secure a prosecution, he may just not, he may just be dumb.
And as a matter, as a statement of fact, I don't know that he's actually lying, otherwise, you know, litigation, we'll put it that way.
I'm not going to directly assert a lawyer did a thing because they're a lawyer, but seems reasonable to me to conclude the prosecution is lying to the jury.
Now, will the jury fall for it?
We really don't know.
And the defense has their ability to argue.
There have already been some objections in the closing arguments, and it's amazing how the prosecution just... the PROSECUTION dismisses it, going, you can argue that later.
Give the judge a chance to rule on the objection.
The prosecution is coming off as very arrogant, and I gotta be honest, insulting to the intelligence of the jury, but hey.
Maybe he's not wrong to insult the jury.
Maybe they are lacking intelligence.
I'm not going to make that assumption.
I think a regular person on this jury is smart enough to see through the manipulations.
But let's get to the news.
We have this story from the Chicago Tribune.
Judge dismisses gun charge against Kyle Reynolds.
Now, of course, over at TimCast.com, We do have this news.
We do have the breaking stories about what's going on.
But I'm not going to use the TimCast.com version because it's very straightforward and honest.
I want to show you what the mainstream media is saying and how they're manipulating.
Of course, you can always go to TimCast.com, become a member to support our fierce and independent journalists.
First, we have this Chicago Tribune story.
correct information, fact checked.
And as a member, you get access to the Timcast IRL members only segments, as well as many
other members only shows that we are now slowly introducing.
But don't forget to like this video, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your
friends.
Let's break down the news.
First, we have this Chicago Tribune story.
They report a Kenosha County judge handed a huge win to Kyle Rittenhouse, Kyle Rittenhouse's
defense team before closing arguments when he dismissed a misdemeanor gun charge against
Legal experts had considered the misdemeanor gun charge, which carries up to 12 months in jail, to be the easiest charge for the state to prove.
Except when you actually look at the law and realize they charged Kyle Rittenhouse with a crime he did not commit.
Ahead of Monday's closing arguments, Judge Bruce Schroeder ruled Wisconsin's open carry law is so confusingly written, it can be interpreted to mean 17-year-olds can openly carry firearms as long as they're not short-barreled rifles.
He believed the jury could only convict if prosecutors proved the barrel of Rittenhouse's rifle was less than 16 inches and has an overall length shorter than 26 inches.
And when he asked of the prosecution, they said no.
He said, is it a short-barreled rifle?
No, your honor.
Count six is dismissed.
Now here's the best part.
The media is frantic.
They are panicked.
They have a narrative to adhere to.
They say the judge conceded it was so confusingly written.
No.
That was an argument made by the prosecution.
The law is not confusingly written.
It's straightforward.
It says, dangerous...
You know what?
I actually want to get to the actual law and a thread produced by lawyer Will Chamberlain to break all this down, but suffice it to say, the law clearly states you must violate these provisions.
One pertains to hunting, one only pertains to people under the age of 16.
To put it simply, the law only applies If you are under 16.
That's not unheard of.
They drafted a law, they went through committee and they said 16 and 17 year olds should be allowed to possess a firearm because maybe they'll go hunting and they don't need parent supervision.
In the law it actually goes through if you are under this age you need parental guardianship and you can be 12 years old bearing a long rifle.
I kid you not.
Not confusing but the media is desperate.
They say They are 15 style rifle Rittenhouse used to fatally shoot two men and injure a third is 35 inches long with a barrel length of 16 inches.
Under defense questioning, a Kenosha police detective said he believed the Smith & Wesson M&P 15 was standard size.
The judge's decision stunned prosecutors who argued his interpretation of the law does not make sense.
Under the judge's interpretation, It would be illegal for a 17-year-old to carry brass knuckles in Wisconsin, but permissible to carry a semi-automatic rifle.
You don't go hunting with brass knuckles.
In this instance, we are dealing specifically with hunting exemptions, which means, broadly speaking, 16 and 17-year-olds are allowed to keep and bear rifles so long as they're not short-barreled, because, perhaps, they might want to go hunting unsupervised.
That means he could also bear that rifle in Kenosha, in the city.
And that's the law.
The judge said unless they can prove otherwise, they couldn't have charged him with this, and he's dismissed the case.
Moving forward, they say, quote, There is no ambiguity, ADA James Cross told the judge Friday.
It is very clear that 17-year-olds are not to possess dangerous weapons.
Except the law actually does make it relatively clear.
Rittenhouse's defense team, however, successfully argued that there was a loophole in the law that says the misdemeanor only applies to 17-year-olds carrying short-barreled rifles.
Carrying a short-barreled rifle at any age in Wisconsin is a felony, with exceptions for active and military police officers.
I believe this is actually incorrect.
I believe it's not a loophole.
They call it an exemption, but I don't think it's an exemption either.
The law clearly states This does not apply if you are 16 or if you are 16 or 17.
if you are 16 or 17.
Schroeder acknowledged the statute was confusing.
This was last week.
Likening it to the infamous Roman Emperor Caligula's posting new laws high upon the column so citizens could not
study them.
I'm still trying to figure out what it says.
What is prohibited?
Schroeder said Friday before making his final decision.
Now I have the good fortune of having some experience and a legal education.
How is your ordinary citizen supposed to acquaint herself with what this law says?
unidentified
Hey it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall and Moms4America 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 Moms4America.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
The statute is poorly worded, but said the legislature's intention was to give teenagers the legal right to haunt as long as they weren't using short-barreled rifles or sawed-off shotguns.
The judge could have recognized that fact and allowed the jury to consider the charge, said John Gross.
The problem is, he cannot.
That makes no sense.
That would mean that a 17-year-old could read the law.
It says the law only applies if you're violating these provisions, and one says if you're under the age of 16.
A law cannot apply to you if How could you violate a provision that only applies to people under 16?
In which case, when Kyle Rittenhouse said he talked to the police, when Kyle Rittenhouse, which he didn't claim, but if he read the law, would not see any reason to believe that he would be in violation of it.
And thus, for the judge to interpret the law otherwise would be to unfairly burden an individual who sought to read it.
Now, They do mention.
In a memo issued in 2018, the Wisconsin Legislative Council, a government-supported nonpartisan legislative service agency, shared the prosecution's understanding of the open carry law and made no mention of rifle size.
Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm.
You see, this is how they try to manipulate you.
Generally.
Certain exemptions.
Kyle Rittenhouse was within those exemptions, period.
They're allowed to bear the arm because we assume that they would want to go hunting.
However, it doesn't make it illegal for then you to have this weapon for self-defense.
The judge so ruled, and of course, people aren't willing to accept it.
In a tweet from Jackie Sheckner, she says, according to an NBC article that I really want to read for you in a second, she said, the article doesn't say why Rittenhouse was 17 and illegally obtained an assault rifle he used to shoot three people.
How is that something a judge can dismiss?
Makes no sense.
I feel bad for this person.
Why?
Will Chamberlain says, let me help you with that and introduces his thread breaking down the law.
There are a lot of people, on the left especially, who have predicated everything they're saying on fake news and now they can't understand if you actually follow the trial.
If you actually read Will Chamberlain's thread from August 27th, 2020, two days, not even two days, but it was after the night in question, if you actually looked to a legal expert, they would tell you the law applies only to those under 16.
And as I've made painfully clear, Will Chamberlain says, here is the relevant Wisconsin statute.
It does say that any person under 18 years of age who goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a misdemeanor, but it has a number of exceptions, including one for minors who are carrying a rifle or shotgun.
Done.
You can't have a weapon unless you are 16 or 17 and it is a rifle or a shotgun.
Rittenhouse expressed he actually was seeking to purchase a shotgun, but I believe they were sold out, in which case he bought a rifle.
He says, as I read it, Rittenhouse is under 18.
But, he was carrying a rifle.
So to have violated the statute, he either had to be in violation of, then he names the sections, or not in compliance with other sections.
He goes on to explain the sections.
Section 29304 only imposes restrictions on the possession of a firearm by minors under the age of 16.
Hard to see how Rittenhouse could violate that.
It says nothing about 17 year olds.
He says, and the other section talks about the need to have a certificate to go hunting.
He wasn't hunting!
So to bring it back to the main statute, Kyle Rittenhouse was under 18, but he was carrying a rifle and not in violation of the three other relevant statutes.
As a result, based on my reading, he committed no crime by open carrying a rifle at 17.
I have the statute right here.
Now, I'm not going to break down all the ridiculous language and go through literally everything, but I want to point out the law in Wisconsin, as I've covered fairly extensively, actually goes through, if you're 12 years old, if you're 12 to 14, if you're 14 to 16, restrictions on other firearms, under 18.
To put it simply, you can bear a rifle.
If you're hunting, you need a certificate.
If you're not hunting, you're exempt.
Now get big mad.
Get big mad, and they are.
I have this article.
I just want to make sure I shout out the injustice of the gun charge against Kyle Rittenhouse.
I've said it now three times in three separate segments, but it's very important.
Andrew Bronk with excellent analysis breaking this down.
But take a look at the big man.
Jonathan Capehart.
This is Washington Post editorial board columnist.
He says, Rittenhouse judge dismisses gun charge against Rittenhouse.
And I'm like, and it's a guy like, oh man, I can't believe it.
Will Chamberlain chiming in, don't worry John, I've got you.
Why are journalists behaving this way?
If you pay attention to this, I don't understand how anybody could read this and come to a separate conclusion.
Now take a look at how NBC does this, and then we'll talk about closing arguments, because my friends, based on everything I've seen, this judge, with what he's said, with the instructions he's given, I kinda think we're gonna see an acquittal across the board.
The judge stated, check this out, he stated, if on the first count, which I believe was intentional homicide against Joseph Rosenbaum, the jury finds there is no self-defense, they're done.
That's it.
Case closed.
Right now, this is guilty.
Now, they're typically instructed, if you do not find self-defense, you are done.
Come back out with your verdict because you don't consider lesser charges if you are finding a guilty verdict on the greater charge.
Intentional homicide.
The judge said, it's not so clear though, that if they find perfect self-defense, That the jury is done.
If, on the first count, they find that Kyle Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense, they are done.
Don't consider the charges.
Come on out.
That's amazing.
The judge did, however, agree that there may be some questions as to recklessness.
Okay, then.
Okay, then.
The judge says, maybe they're right and we'll give some consideration and we'll read the instructions as they're presented.
But it just goes to show the judge is, I think, being as fair as he can be.
He allowed CGI evidence, which shocked me.
Computer generated imagery.
I don't think that's fair at all.
But on these other charges, I think he's trying to do his best, and on the gun charge, he was overtly fair.
But take a look at how the media is handling this.
Look at this.
Judge dismisses weapon charge in Kyle Rittenhouse trial before closing arguments.
Just like in the Tribune, they write some ridiculousness.
Check this out.
A Wisconsin prosecutor on Monday called Kyle Rittenhouse a gunman with no honor or legal authority to kill two men.
Uh, how is that news pertaining to a gun charge?
Okay, NBC.
In closing arguments to jurors, ADA Thomas Binger challenged Rittenhouse's claim of self-defense.
We know the case.
So consider, for example, whether or not it's heroic or honorable to provoke and shoot unarmed people.
Provoke?
Where is that evidence?
There's none.
But he just made it up, presenting CGI evidence.
The judge allowed it.
But I will point out, what does this have to do with the headline of the article?
They say, quote, he goes on to say, a quote from Binger, they enjoy the thrill of going around and telling people what to do without the courage or the honor to back it up without the legal authority to do so, okay?
Now, they go on to mention some of the closing arguments, but here's where it gets important.
Moments before closing arguments began, Judge Bruce Schroeder dismissed one count of illegal possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
The misdemeanor, punishable by up to nine months in jail, I thought it was 12.
was considered one of the stronger counts against Rittenhouse.
No one disputes he was 17 last year and he was armed with a weapon.
But the judge cited an exception within the law dealing with the age of the defendant, length of the barrel, and hunting for dismissing that count.
The reason observers correctly believe the misdemeanor gun charge was a slam dunk because it's not disputed that Kyle Rittenhouse was 17.
But the criminal statute itself is more complicated than that.
For the statute to apply, the defendant had to also violate a hunting regulation that only applies to people under 16.
The defense discovered what was essentially an error in the legislation, that Kyle Rittenhouse cannot violate a law that only applies.
An error?
An error?! !
You see what the media does?
It was a mistake!
He was guilty, but the law was written wrong!
No!
I don't- I'm- I can't assume that!
It makes perfect sense to me!
If you're 16 or 17, and it's just a rifle, you're good.
If you're under 16, you need a guardian, or a certificate for hunting, or something like that.
And if you're 17 or 16, you can't have a handgun, and Rittenhouse testified to this.
He testified he knew he couldn't have a handgun because of the law, but he also knew that he could have a long gun.
Specific kinds.
The barrel length and everything.
The media is going to falsely frame it.
It was a mistake.
It was an error.
They're going to smear him.
They're not going to show the defense's arguments.
They're not going to present a fair framing of this.
It was a tragedy.
In my opinion, Kyle Rittenhouse arguably should not have been there.
But his dad lives in the city.
His extended family lives in the city of Kenosha.
He personally lives only about 20 miles away.
Yes, across state lines, but on the border, basically.
He works in Kenosha.
His friends live in Kenosha.
He drives down that street every day, and someone asked him to come and defend the place, and the gun was in possession of Dominic Black.
Now, we can argue tons of things shouldn't have happened, and Kyle Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there.
But right now we're trying to discuss whether or not he was defending himself.
The left desperately needed this gun win to say that he wasn't legally allowed to have the weapon, therefore... No, therefore.
Kyle Rittenhouse was in a city where his family lives, in a city where he works, with his friends who live in the city.
He was armed with a weapon he was legally allowed to possess.
He was attacked.
He defended himself.
Now it's up to the jury.
Was it self-defense?
The provocation, I think, is bad faith and makes no sense because there is no evidence to suggest this.
But let's go through some of what we've seen so far.
I got a bunch of tweets.
When it came to that evidence, the CGI evidence, the prosecution is claiming to the jury, just lying outright in my opinion, that Rittenhouse pointed the weapon at the Zeminskis.
However, The judge pointed out the Zeminskis never stated a gun was pointed at them.
There is no evidence to suggest that ever happened.
The prosecution did not have the Zeminskis testify.
Well, why is that?
In my opinion, the prosecution didn't realize this argument until the last minute.
They knew they had no case.
They knew they would never convince a jury of intentional homicide.
They charged it anyway, and they said, what can we do?
Provocation.
This video is so blurry, let's... He pointed the weapon.
It's nonsense, and I'll show you why.
But you see, if you really believed it from the get-go, first, in the opening statements, they would have brought up provocation, which they never did.
And he would have had the Zeminskis testify, which he didn't.
However, the Zeminskis are also being criminally charged by A.D.A.
Binger.
Think about it.
Binger could have told Zeminsky, arson charges are pending.
But I'll consider good behavior if you testify for me that Kyle Rittenhouse pointed a weapon at you as we can clearly see, right?
You think Zeminsky would have turned that down?
He would have been like, sure.
At least in my opinion.
I don't know for sure.
Speculative.
The prosecutor had that opportunity.
Didn't take it.
Didn't even bother bringing up Zeminsky, why?
If Zeminsky had a gun pointed at him, and he's ideologically opposed to Rittenhouse, why wouldn't he testify?
If it happened.
Because the reality is, it did not happen.
And maybe he did ask Zeminsky.
And maybe Zeminsky said, come on, dude, that didn't happen.
Never pointed that weapon at me.
Let's read some more.
It's interesting.
I'll give you a quote from the judge.
The judge said, you can say that pointing a gun at someone without justification is unlawful,
but you can't invite the jury to speculate as to whether a gun was pointed at someone.
You need actual evidence.
Branca states there is no evidence.
At best, the gun was pointed in the general area.
Suffice it to say, however, the video doesn't show anything because it's a blurry mess.
Branca says the state has a problem with the left-handed issue.
If the video, as presented, the CGI, mind you, was true, it would mean that Kyle Rittenhouse ran, put down a fire extinguisher, and very quickly flipped the weapon over his shoulder and then used his left hand.
It makes no sense.
It's a Hail Mary.
But it doesn't matter, in the end, because the prosecution is lying anyway!
Which is where things get really interesting, but let's go through some more.
From Law of Self-Defense, it's Andrew Branca.
He says, Binger said, you can see how far away Rosenbaum was when defendant shot him.
Not even within arm's reach.
Now, this is where we're getting into the closing arguments.
The defense hasn't made their closing argument as I'm filming this, only the prosecution has.
But Branca points out, gun has length.
Rosenbaum may be out of reach of Kyle's body, but has hand on muzzle of gun.
Definitively proven.
Witness testimony stated he had burn, uh, powder burns.
His hand was on the gun.
We all know it.
Krauss.
We can show those are only... Oh, I think this is on the... Okay, so this is back on the photo evidence.
This is important.
He says, Krauss, one of the prosecutors, we can show those are the only people over there, but the judge says, I don't think I can give the jury an instruction on something I don't see.
The judge himself looked at the CGI and said, I don't see anything.
I can't instruct the jury to consider it if I can't even see it, right?
Now, I may have these out of order, but, uh, this is important.
Because, uh, I have the one tweet that's out of order, but this is back to the photo CGI evidence.
Richards, the defense, says, we object once again to relying on this photo.
The judge says that he struggles.
How do we know it was pointed at anyone?
You have a theory.
You point it in a direction, but the statute requires it was pointed at an actual person.
I don't see it at all.
Now, this is where it gets really interesting.
In this video clip from Town Hall, the prosecution in their closing argument said, this is a bar fight.
This is a fist fight.
What you don't do is you don't bring a gun to a fistfight.
And then shows what I think is Roadhouse?
And it's Patrick Swayze about to fight someone?
I'm sorry.
This is wrong.
The prosecutor is trying to argue, and has, and I think I might have it somewhere, I'm not sure.
Yes, I have it right here.
The ADA says the opposite of what the judge just instructed the jury on.
He says, you lose the right to self-defense when you're the one who brought the gun.
You're the one who brought the danger.
That's the full quote.
That's partially true, I guess.
If you have a gun, you are not losing your right to self-defense if someone else doesn't.
He's tried to make the argument that because Rosenbaum was unarmed, there's no reasonable self-defense.
Wrong.
Rosenbaum's hand was on the gun.
Now, I don't know if this is true.
I'm not a legal expert, but my understanding, based on listening to other legal experts, hearsay perhaps, is that if someone puts their hand on your weapon, it's called dual possession.
So that means Karl Rittenhouse 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 Was armed, but it also means Rosenbaum was armed as well.
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. It's America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Was armed, but it also means Rosenbaum was armed as well.
And I think any reasonable person understands if someone is trying to grab your weapon,
you are an imminent threat of death.
They're taking your weapon from you.
What are they gonna do with it?
Why would you assume they would take it from you and then, what?
Take it apart?
Clear the chamber and take the magazine?
Why would you assume that?
Especially if this guy threatens to kill you.
Now, we got a lot here.
This is actually...
Alright, check it out.
Binger said, if defendant provoked, he must exhaust all reasonable means of escape.
Did he?
He didn't have to shoot.
He chose to run to cars.
Crowd was already running away.
Huge open space where defendant could have circled back around as he later did and get away.
What's interesting here is, this is another example of where the prosecutor is contradicting the judge overtly.
The judge said that you do not have a duty to retreat.
Kyle Rittenhouse did not have to run away.
Yet he did.
He did run away.
As I read in legal analysis from some other legal experts, retreat avoidance is not a factor in Wisconsin self-defense.
It is in some places.
In Wisconsin, if someone threatens you, you can stand your ground.
But why did Binger tell the jury he must exhaust all reasonable means of escape?
Because, in my opinion, he's a liar.
He has no case, and he's desperate.
Holding AR now, Binger drops the fire extinguisher on the ground like this, slowly, and raises with his left hand and points.
Richards, the defense, objects.
He's facing the wrong direction.
Binger says, that's an argument.
Judge allows.
This is what's really interesting as well.
There was an objection.
And Binger, the prosecutor, said, that's an argument.
Let the judge handle that.
And he did it twice.
I believe he did it twice.
It's incredible that Binger can state things that are factually untrue to the jury.
And we have to argue it?
I'm shocked by this.
If he's facing the wrong direction, it's not an argument, it's a statement of fact.
Is the prosecution lying?
The answer was yes.
In my opinion.
Binger says, no evidence Rosenbaum was reaching for the gun.
And after first shot, could not have taken the gun even if he wanted to.
Helpless and vulnerable.
Kill shot to the back.
There's evidence Rosenbaum was reaching for the gun.
Richie McGinnis said it.
There was burn marks on his hands.
It's amazing, isn't it?
So what are we supposed to do here?
When the prosecutor says there's no evidence, we come out and say, Richie McGinnis said it and there was marks on his hands.
The jury will have to then look at the evidence and hopefully they don't believe the lies.
Here's another one from Jack Posobiec.
Binger just lied about no evidence that Rosenbaum was going for the gun.
All of the evidence shows Rosenbaum was going for the gun.
Binger even just admitted Rosenbaum was hitting the hand, which shows he was reaching forward.
This is a travesty.
And I completely agree.
Binger says, Alleged murder threat by Rosenbaum to murder defendant.
I will debunk that.
It did not happen.
There is no threat and no evidence.
He said, of everything that was filmed that night, this is the one thing that wasn't filmed.
I'm gonna debunk that claim.
No evidence.
Uh, except for the testimony of Ryan Balch.
Who literally said Rosenbaum threatened his life and Kyle's life.
And then there's Kyle's testimony, which is also evidence, unless you're accusing him of perjury, where he said Rosenbaum threatened his life.
And on another occasion as well.
But apparently, the prosecutor Is allowed to say whatever he wants.
Now we have this from Will Chamberlain.
Binger accused multiple witnesses of perjuring themselves.
Rittenhouse and Balch.
And Richie McGinnis!
Richie said, well, he said F you and lunged at him.
I believe he said reached for the gun.
Tried taking his gun.
I'm, well, I could be wrong about this, but I'm fairly certain Richie said he was reaching for the gun.
So how can the prosecutor just lie like this?
You know, this is the challenge here.
The defense may have a good rebuttal.
The defense may come up with a good argument, but will they actually be able to convince the jury that the prosecutor was lying?
As far as the jury can tell, the prosecutor is being honest about the facts of the case and the requirements, but they must determine if they agree with him.
If someone comes to you and says, look, the sky is blue.
Now, the question to you is whether or not blue is beautiful.
If blue is considered beautiful, then you must find guilty, and people will be like, well, the sky is blue, and I do like blue.
No, no, no, no, no.
That's actually a bad example, because the sky is blue.
If he was like, the sky is green!
And if the sky is green, then, well, the sky isn't green.
I mean, maybe during a weird thunderstorm, it might turn green in the clouds or something, but it's not.
How could you just say it is, and use that as a determinant factor in whether or not someone could find guilt?
I gotta say, I'm surprised by a lot of it.
But, of course, I'm not surprised by the response from these leftists.
Nina Turner.
She said, if Kyle Rittenhouse were black, he would have been killed for holding that weapon.
What's a justice system without justice?
Perhaps.
Absolutely.
I've seen a video where a black man was walking down the street with an AR, he gets surrounded by cops, they tell him to get to the ground and put his hands up, and I am offended, insulted, and outraged by that video.
I've seen other videos where white men are walking around with guns and the cops smile and wave.
That doesn't mean in every single instance, every single instance, a black person holding a gun will be treated this way.
I am, I don't, but the point here, I don't care if you're a white man, when you get stopped and they say have a nice day because you're legally in possession, good.
If you're a black man, you get stopped and say on the ground, hands in the air, bad.
If Kyle Rittenhouse is condemned because you are mad about what happens to other people, a travesty of justice.
If a black man was bearing arms legally and showed up to an event, he should be treated with dignity, respect, and he should be allowed to defend himself.
And if it was a black teenager who was attacked by rioters and he defended himself, I would be right here defending his right to keep and bear arms.
And you know what?
Every single pro-2A person would as well.
The closing arguments are still happening.
And the jury deliberations, I believe, will begin probably tomorrow.
It could be tonight.
We are going to be talking with Drew Hernandez tonight on TimCast IRL.
A key witness.
Not the first time we've had him on, and not the first witness, but now more than ever, it's important to talk about what's going on and this case, and Drew Hernandez testified in this trial.
It's going to be interesting.
Thanks for hanging out so far.
Stick around.
YouTube.com slash TimCast IRL live tonight with analysis on what's going on, the closing arguments.
Come hang out.
Thanks for hanging out.
We'll see you all then.
I have not one story about COVID lockdowns, vaccination.
I've got several, and I don't even know which one to choose from.
How about we'll just run through them right away so we keep you all interested.
First, Austria orders lockdown for unvaccinated amid COVID surge.
That's right.
If you're not vaccinated, you have a stay-at-home order depending on the capacity of certain hospitals.
We all saw this coming, right?
How about this one from Bloomberg?
It may turn out the term booster is a bit of a misnomer, and the correct number of shots for maximum efficacy isn't yet known.
Okay, how about this one?
COVID test firm to sell swabs carrying customers' DNA.
Ah, my friends, here we are, here we are, here we are.
The nightmare dystopia is upon us, so let me just explain.
In Austria.
Admittedly not the United States.
You can't go outside if you're not vaccinated.
And what does not vaccinated mean?
Well, maybe you've gotten one shot.
Maybe you've gotten two, three, four, who knows?
Bloomberg says we actually don't know.
And ladies and gentlemen, the final cherry on top to bring this all home.
From Mark D. Levine in New York City.
The New York City Health Department authorizes COVID booster shots for all New Yorkers aged 18 plus as long as it is at least six months since their second Pfizer or Moderna dose and two months since Johnson & Johnson.
This is a welcome move at a time when cases are rising in New York City.
Here we are.
Now, I don't know if the United States will end up with an Austria-style unvaccinated lockdown, but in the event that we do, let me just assure you, booster shots for all.
When they first announced it, actually, shout out to Dave Rubin, when he tweeted, booster shots are coming, Twitter suspended him.
And now where are we?
Well, we quickly then entered the phase where they said, we just need booster shots for those that are immunocompromised.
Now we're at the point where they're saying, everyone in New York, the NBA already mandated this.
Now, I like vaccines.
I really do.
A lot of people aren't fans for whatever reason.
That's fine.
I don't have anything to do with your medical history.
I actually really think I've read a lot about mRNA.
I say this often, but it bears repeating in this context because we need to get to the core of what the problem is.
And everybody, whether you like me or don't like me, need to understand what this is all about.
mRNA technology, what we use for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, brilliant.
It's actually quite incredible.
It can be amplified to crazy degrees.
It could maybe cure tons of other diseases, maybe cancer, who knows?
That being said, mandating someone undergo a permanent medical procedure, wrong.
I will never support that.
If you want to go to the doctor, you have a conversation with him, I suggest you take your advice from your doctor.
The funny thing is, let me tell you guys this before we get into all this, because I'll tell you what really grinds my gears.
When I got sick with COVID a couple weeks ago, The first thing I got was monoclonal antibodies, an approved emergency use authorization treatment, which I have long touted.
But I'm not gonna tell you what to get, you gotta talk to your doctor.
But I've said, hey, look at this, it's what Trump got, right?
I also got NAD, which is, I don't know how you describe it, it's a cellular regenerative therapy or whatever, and a vitamin hydration IV.
Because they were like, we gotta get your fluids up, I wasn't eating, I wasn't drinking, I was really in bad shape.
I got better almost instantly, and it was just the monoclonal antibodies.
Now, the doctor prescribed me azithromycin and ivermectin, and I literally said I don't want it.
But the doctor said to me, and I even said, I was like, look, I don't want that stuff.
I already feel better.
Do I really need to take it?
Because I'm feeling good.
And they said, look, we don't want this thing coming back.
Just take what you are being prescribed.
And my attitude is, I'm not going to argue with the doctor.
I'm not going to argue.
They gave me a treatment.
I was feeling better.
They told me today.
I said, fine.
Now you go talk to your doctor.
You figure it out for yourself.
What we can't have.
We have no explanation, no understanding as to when we are fully vaccinated, because it keeps changing.
There's a viral meme of CNN articles where it's like, one shot of COVID or Moderna will give you strong protection.
Then it comes out later, it's like, you'll need the full doses.
Then it comes out later, efficacy is waning.
Then it comes, and it's showing you all these CNN articles, and it's like, Now you need booster shots for the immunocompromised.
Now booster shots for everybody.
Maybe a third, maybe a fourth.
For the immunocompromised, we're already on four shots.
They're already saying now, after your six, you know, six months, you can get another booster.
The NBA has mandated it.
So Kyrie Irving was right!
Because it's not gonna be just, get your vaccine and we're all good, we're all back to normal.
It's gonna be, actually, maybe we gotta keep doing this.
At a certain point, we have to accept that we're in bad shape.
COVID is a really bad thing.
And we're going to have to accept that it's here and try and figure out to the best of our abilities.
That means if you want to get your boosters and you go to the doctor, hey man, that's all on you.
That's what you can do.
And you got to do what's right by you.
And I don't think anybody should kick you out of a restaurant or bar you from leaving your home because you've talked to your doctor and your doctor has given you private medical advice.
This is what's happening in Austria.
Take a look at this.
They say Austria orders lockdown for unvaccinated amid COVID surge.
And can I just stress again, they're selling people's DNA.
Anyway, I digress.
NBC News reports.
Austria took what its leaders called the dramatic step Monday of implementing a nationwide lockdown for unvaccinated people who haven't recently had COVID-19.
Perhaps the most drastic of a string of measures being taken by European governments to get a massive regional resurgence of the virus under control.
The move, which took effect at midnight, prohibits people 12 and older who haven't been vaccinated or recently recovered from leaving their homes.
Except for basic activities such as working, grocery shopping, going to school or university, or for a walk, or getting vaccinated.
The lockdown is initially being imposed until November 24th in the Alpine country of 8.9 million.
It doesn't apply to children under 12 because they cannot yet officially get vaccinated.
Though the capital, Vienna, on Monday opened up vaccinations for under 12s as part of a pilot project and reported high demand.
Officials say police patrols and checks will be stepped up and unvaccinated people can be fined up to 1,450 euro if they violate the lockdown, quote.
We really didn't take the step lightly and I don't think it should be talked down, Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg told OL Radio.
This is a dramatic step.
About 2 million people in this country are effective.
What we are trying is precisely to reduce contact between the unvaccinated and vaccinated to a minimum, and also contact between the unvaccinated.
Quote, my aim is very clearly to get the unvaccinated to get themselves vaccinated and not to lock down the vaccinated.
Schallenberg added, in the long term, the way out of this vicious circle we are in, and it is a vicious circle, we are stumbling from wave to lockdown and that can't carry on and add infinitum.
It's only vaccination.
Well, look, This guy's not a doctor.
He's a government official.
Maybe he's not wrong.
I don't know for sure.
What I can say is there are fundamental human rights at question.
And whether or not they want to get control of this, and as someone who's had COVID, and I had it really bad.
It was the worst experience, worst illness I've ever had.
I fully understand this.
But I believe that what happened to me doesn't happen to everybody.
And I witnessed that.
When we got sick, I got really, really sick.
And so, you know, I've had people say to me, like, maybe you should have gotten vaccinated and you wouldn't have gotten as sick as so they say.
Well, I got really sick.
I got a treatment that seems to have worked for me.
There are free clinics that provide this, free, in many different states.
I'm pretty sure Maryland and, you know, has them.
Florida famously has them.
But many of the people who got sick, sniffles.
Not kidding.
Some people got moderately sick and they're like, ah, this sucks.
I'm gonna go just chill out for the next few days.
Some people were like, I guess I'm testing positive, but I've just been sniffling.
And for me, I was like in agony.
Absolute agony.
So what I say is, when I experience that and it's bad, Some people don't.
So it's, to me, it's remarkable that we're at a point where we're saying some people, you know, will get sunburns and some people won't.
So, should sunscreen be made mandatory for everybody?
I understand it's not a contagious disease, I understand sunburn is common.
My point is, some people don't get sunburned, some people do.
We shouldn't mandate treatment for everybody based on what some people might experience.
You go to your doctor, your doctor might say you are at high risk, then you make a decision.
The government getting involved, in my opinion, is wrong.
The leader of the far right, Opposition Freedom Party, vowed to combat the new restrictions by all parliamentary and legal means we have available.
Two million people are being practically imprisoned without having done anything wrong.
On Monday, Kickl announced on Facebook that he had tested positive for COVID-19 and must self-isolate for 14 days, so he won't be able to attend a protest in Vienna planned for Saturday.
Authorities are concerned about rising infections, and we get it from here.
We get it from here.
Now, here's the problem.
Okay, what does it mean to be fully vaccinated?
Bloomberg tweeted, it may turn out the term booster is a bit of a misnomer and the correct number of shots is not known.
From Bloomberg, how long will boosters last?
They say, The lowdown on booster shots.
How long will they last?
Boosters are a hot topic right now.
And our inbox is full of questions about them, especially this one.
How long will they last?
Before we answer that, we should clarify who in the U.S.
is currently recommended to get them.
You're 18 and older and received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine more than two months ago.
You received Pfizer or Moderna and are over 65, and you've received either Pfizer or Moderna shot, you're 18 or older, and have an underlying medical condition, live in a long-term care facility, or work in high-risk settings, and let me just add for Bloomberg, who may have missed the important detail, you live in New York City, are over the age of 18, and it's been at least six months since you got your second Moderna or Pfizer, or two months since Johnson & Johnson.
The CDC has already said they may change the definition of fully vaccinated.
They go on to say, quote, some of us need boosters for two reasons.
The first is that the protection against mild and moderate illness provided by the initial
vaccination appears to wane over time, especially among older individuals.
I have a question for any doctors or any scientists who might know.
The first, so you get two shots and you get protection against mild and moderate illnesses.
First, my question is for Bloomberg.
What does protection mean?
I mean this legitimately.
I'm not playing stupid games.
I don't know what they mean by protection because I know that they say you're substantially less likely to get this.
Uh, if you're vaccinated, and if you do, it is substantially less serious.
That actually makes a ton of sense to me, assuming, assuming it's true, I'm not a doctor, I'm not a scientist, but, uh, we know that viral load plays a role in, like, how sick you get, and I think this might make sense for me.
Some people got mildly sick, then once everybody was mildly sick, I come into contact with a larger viral load.
Maybe, I don't know, maybe that doesn't make sense.
The point is, If you're vaccinated, then by the time your body has a reaction to the virus, there's a lot less of it.
So your body just knocks it out.
That all makes a ton of sense to me.
But I don't know what they mean by protection because we're talking about semantic arguments.
Do you mean the likelihood of infection or the reduction in symptoms?
Or do you mean both?
Bloomberg, please clarify.
They say, quote, the second reason is that the Delta variant is more infectious. This means
everyone, even vaccinated people, is more likely to get exposed to an infectious dose of the virus
and have it challenge their immune system. The booster helps your immune system
mount an effective response. My assumption, as I just stated, is that
I feel like the rapid when I got COVID, it was like nothing and then instantly something big.
And I think it's because COVID is in your system for a while without an immune response.
It's just my opinion, I know for sure.
That's why viral load plays a role.
Seems to me that if you're vaccinated, then your body already is triggered to attack the virus as soon as it encounters it, which is probably why the symptoms are less severe, which basically is kind of what they're saying.
The issue for me, however, is that... Well, it's all about mandates.
Look, I know a lot of people are like, the vaccine was supposed to be, you know, they say Johnson & Johnson was one and done, and now it's two months later, booster shot, and yadda yadda.
Hey, we talk about this all the time with antibiotics.
Antibiotics are becoming less effective, you know?
There are superbugs that just are combating the antibiotics, now they gotta do different ones.
You talk to your doctor, and you choose.
That is my position.
You can tell me I'm wrong about my politics, you can tell me I'm wrong about how I feel about vaccines, and I'm gonna say, oh yeah?
Well, it's gonna be up to you to figure out how you live your life and go to your doctor and, you know, whatever.
I'm not here to give you advice on that stuff.
They say, some states such as California and Colorado have opened up booster shots to all adults who are at least six months past their second mRNA dose.
Wow, the entire state?
I didn't realize that.
It may turn out the term booster is a bit of a misnomer.
The correct number of shots for maximum efficacy isn't yet known and maybe it will never be.
Maybe the vaccine lasts for a certain amount of time and then goes away.
Hey, get this.
I got the Regeneron therapy, and they say it lasts eight months, giving you like 82% protection against the virus for, uh, towards immunity.
Because I want to clarify, right?
If that's the case, what's the difference between the Regeneron therapy and a vaccine?
Seriously.
So does that, do I count as vaccinated?
No?
You know, when it comes to COVID?
Because I got Regeneron?
I'll tell you this, though.
They told me, within a certain amount of time, if you get vaccinated, you have to wait, I think, 90 days before you can get the Regeneron therapy.
And if you get the Regeneron therapy, you gotta wait 90 days before you can get the vaccine.
That's what I was told.
But again, you gotta talk to your doctor.
I don't know.
My question, though, is, if the definition of a vaccine is something that triggers an immune response that provides partial immunity or protection to an illness, Monoclonal antibodies would be a vaccine, wouldn't they?
I'm not saying, I'm asking.
I don't know.
They say, now on to the question of how long boosters will last.
This is Bloomberg.
It's possible, says Justman, that the months-long gap between initial doses of the vaccine and boosters will help the immune system maintain a strong response for a much longer period than the initial regimen did.
But we need more data to have any sort of definitive answer.
I'll stress this too.
And then we'll move on from here.
I got the Yellow Fever vaccine.
The first shot, they say, protects you for six months.
Then you gotta come back in a month and get a second booster, and you get ten years of protection.
So, the idea that you need boosters is not a new thing.
I'm just saying, I'll make sure that's clear.
Let's talk about an invasion of our rights.
Because this is the Nightmare Dystopia, you gotta understand.
The Telegraph reports a leading COVID-19 testing firm is planning to sell swabs containing customers' DNA, prompting an investigation by the UK's data privacy watchdog.
Signpost Diagnostics, a government-approved supplier trading at Trading as Express Test said it will analyze samples to sell the information to third parties, company documents have revealed.
The company claimed it will also use the medical data to learn more about human health and develop new drugs and products, the Sunday Times reported.
Explicit informed consent customers booking tests through the Express Test website were not clearly told their data Ahem.
Their DNA would be used for purposes beyond COVID-19 testing.
Instead, they were reportedly asked to tick a box agreeing to a 4,876-word privacy policy which links to another document outlining its research program.
Typically, analysis of sensitive medical information can only be carried out with explicit informed consent.
Sigan Post Diagnostics, which has 71 walk-in locations across the UK, is reported to have delivered up to 3 million tests since June last year.
The company charges between £35 and £120 for a PCR test and is estimated to have generated tens of millions of pounds from test fees alone.
It's quote, Did you know that you were giving up your DNA when they were swapping your nose?
in October 21st says the company retains data including biological samples and the DNA obtained
from such samples, as well as genetic information derived from processing your DNA sample using
various technologies such as genotyping and whole or partial genome sequencing.
Did you know that you were giving up your DNA when they were swapping your nose?
This is weird, okay?
A lot of people assumed it.
A lot of people said they're taking your DNA- I don't know.
What I know is they swab, they say they put in the test, they want to see if there's a virus or whatever, but now this company says they've genome- partially mapped your genome sequence, or fully, and they're going to sell your DNA!
I wonder what they could do with it.
I may not be completely honest.
I don't know.
There's interesting things we can do with DNA databases.
Willful participation, I think, is one of the most incredible things in the world.
If people are willing to share their genetic sequence with a company that's doing research because they're fine with it, I believe that's fantastic and a good thing.
Because we'll get to the core of this.
Freedom, privacy, individual rights.
Think about the amazing things we'll discover by mapping the human genome, every person.
We can look at everybody who's got some, you know, genetic disorder and then find out exactly where.
It's really simple.
You put up a million people's genetic samples and a million people with, say, a genetic disease, and you all see the same genetic sequence, the same pattern.
You go, we think we figured it out.
That's cool.
What's not cool is someone saying, please tell me if I'm sick, and then them going, by the way, now that we have your DNA, we're gonna sell it to someone to do research against your will.
Your DNA is you, man!
It's your code!
You've always gotta have informed consent.
The consent of the governed, the consent of the participants must be coercion, not legitimate.
But this is what we're getting now.
Is it the will of the people that if you're not vaccinated, you can't leave your home?
No, it's manipulation and it's coercion.
I think the vaccines are a good thing, but I ultimately think people can choose to get or not get them depending on their medical advice.
And I don't think the government should mandate it because no one's voting on these mandates.
That's the important factor here.
You can argue that many of these leftists and progressives voted for the mandates by bringing in Democrats they know will implement them.
I don't think it's fair to say right now 100% across the board.
I know that Joe Biden said there won't be mandates.
People voted for that.
You know, people supported this guy, and he said, I don't think we're going to need a mandate.
Well, I think he said that after he got elected.
But people genuinely believed that Biden and the Democrats wouldn't implement it, and then they did.
And now we look at what happened in Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey with these elections where Republicans swept across the board.
I think people are now saying, we don't vote for this.
We vote against this.
Let me tell you, my friends, COVID was really bad.
It was a miserable experience.
It freaked me out.
I was genuinely worried for my health.
I think it's important that people understand that.
Because I think there's a lot of people who downplay the severity of COVID.
Not everybody got as sick as I did, but boy did I get it bad.
So I think you should take it seriously.
And I think ultimately, it's your choice to be made.
If you want to take that risk, that's on you.
You want to go bungee jumping, that's on you.
Sometimes they measure the bungee cord wrong and... You know what I mean?
You want to go skydiving, sometimes people have accidents.
You wanna ride a motorcycle?
Yeah, it's something like a quarter of all people who ride motorcycles get injured or, like, get hit or something.
I mean, it's serious stuff.
But you know what?
We still allow it.
We still let people take these risks, play sports.
What are we supposed to be?
Like that episode of Black Mirror where we're all living in cubicles where the whole wall's a screen and we watch TV where our digital avatar is in the audience for us?
Or The Matrix where you just plug into a VR world where we're safe forever and can never be harmed?
Or do we recognize that, I don't know, sometimes you fall, you fall down the stairs, and you'll break your ankle?
We don't ban stairs!
Everybody must use elevators from now on because they're safer.
No.
The reality is we take risks every day.
What risks are we willing to accept?
I had a good conversation with Ian on TimCastIRL when he mentioned airborne Ebola and said, you know, so what, if it's a more serious disease, your rights be damned, but because you're not scared of this one, you don't have to worry about it?
You know what?
Yes.
Tripping and falling down the stairs happens.
Please don't trip.
But we don't ban stairs because, well, you know, we live with these risks.
COVID is a risk as well, and I think it's really bad, and I think it's really scary.
But is this something we can say, look, we might ban, you know, climbing an inverted ladder for businesses, like that's not a reasonable way for people to get a second floor, and we might say it's a violation of building code.
Okay, that's an unreasonable risk.
But, stairs?
Not an unreasonable risk, even though people fall down stairs.
You get the point?
Airborne Ebola?
Substantial risk.
COVID?
It's a risk, but it's not airborne Ebola.
It's all about tolerance.
And I think the main issue is that we, as a society, are losing our tolerance for risk, and we're becoming weaker.
We'll see how that plays out in the long run.
For the time being, it means the nightmare dystopia is expanding, and it's gonna affect all of us, and it's only gonna get worse.
Unless, in the midterms, we get... America First types, like... I-I-I don't mean to say that, like, isolationist, so I probably don't feel the same way as a lot of other people when it comes to, like, America First.
I just mean, like, yo, we should definitely have international relations, international trade, and we should make sure America is fixing its water, like, Flint, that whole crisis.
That's what- that's what it means to me.
We gotta get rid of the establishment, the neocons, the Democrats, and bring in—I don't care what the party's called—primary these people, Democrat or Republican, and bring about real change.
I'll leave it there.
The Rittenhouse trial is underway, and we got major news.
The gun charge was dismissed, but I got that segment coming up for you at 4 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
Closing arguments will be stated.
They will be argued.
The prosecution will have a few hours.
The defense will have a few hours.
I believe there's a period for rebuttal.
I'm not entirely sure.
Not a lawyer.
And then it's off to the jury.
Now, personally, After seeing all the evidence, there was a lot I learned in this trial that I did not know beforehand.
Notably, the death threats against Kyle Rittenhouse and things like that.
So, let's be honest.
When I saw the video, when I saw the evidence, my mind was made up a long time ago.
And absolutely, I approached all of this with that perspective, seeing what was going on.
But the truth is, The narrative that came from the left from the get-go was wrong, so there's no way to actually have a separate assessment of what was actually happening, right?
What I mean to say with this is that if you're approaching the trial hearing the evidence from the perspective that Kyle Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense, there's no other way to view it.
Of course, you can believe the lies from the mainstream media and the left, and they're still putting out these lies.
Well, the closing arguments are here, and the last ditch Hail Mary pass from the prosecution stems from one of the most absurd and ridiculous things I have personally ever seen.
False evidence, fake video, admitted, allowed, because the defense, in my opinion, screwed this up, but maybe not.
Maybe not.
Maybe the jury's gonna be smart enough to see through whatever it is this image is.
Now, my friends, I'm gonna rehash a lot of what we saw throughout the trial.
You'll probably hear a lot of similar things.
This is important because today is closing arguments, which means they are going to go to deliberations probably by the end of the day.
Maybe the judge will order them to start tomorrow, to go home, get some rest, and then tomorrow start thinking about it.
But if the judge, they've got to do their jury instructions, they've got to do the closing arguments, so they might not start deliberating immediately, but this could be over fast.
So we've got to go through this.
We've got to go through what we've seen so far and a bit of the evidence.
And I also want to talk, once again, about where the media is at with their lying.
Because I think one of the greatest examples of the psychosis that we're experiencing in the United States is Ben and Jerry's tweeting out what is very obviously debunked information.
They put out the fake narrative.
And I'll get to that in a second, but I want to start by showing you this image to make a very important point.
As I'm preparing this segment in our new luxurious mobile studio, mind you, because we're on tour in Austin.
On tour, I guess.
No, we're in Austin.
As I'm putting together this segment, I have to be careful because YouTube bans videos, they censor videos, if you show certain images from the night in Kenosha, the night in question, and I'm sensitive to that.
Now, I'm not a fan of YouTube's editorial guidelines.
I believe that should be up to the individual, but at the same time, if you're gonna show a video of, like, this very serious, tragic moment, I'm not surprised YouTube's gonna say, hey, at the very least, we're not going to promote that to people.
And it's partially true of the mainstream media.
They do get leeway because YouTube will put them on the front page by default, and then they'll show a lot of the same imagery.
So it is, uh, you know, a cheater's game, as it were.
Anyway, I digress.
I try to be careful of this.
I gotta make sure that I'm not showing specific, you know, videos from the night in question in certain circumstances, I'll add, because if we're talking about trying to prove Self-defense.
Like, we went through all of this.
We showed footage in the past and everything.
But for now, we're getting into arguments.
I digress.
The image you can see on your screen, for those that are watching, is the prosecution's last-ditch Hail Mary evidence.
I have no idea what it's a picture of!
That's right.
I know what the prosecution said it was a picture of, but it is a blurry disaster.
It is, and it's probably got only a hundred pixels if you actually were to place it on a screen.
And so they zoomed in and enlarged it using an algorithm which added pixels.
There's a ghost sign.
No, no, no.
You think I'm joking?
People who are listening on the podcast, they can't see this.
There is a sign that has a silhouette ghost version of itself emerging because the photo is very clearly manipulated and not real.
That being said, I thought it was funny that I don't have to worry about showing you this photo on YouTube.
Isn't that interesting?
Well, the prosecution purports that this image shows Kyle Rittenhouse pointing a weapon at individuals on the scene, provoking them.
And that's the last ditch effort they have.
They never mentioned provocation until the very last minute when they were like, I got an idea.
Now here's the best part.
If I actually had a photo, if I actually had a photo of Kyle Reynolds pointing a weapon at someone, I could not put that on YouTube!
Get it?
This photo, it's not a photo of that!
This, okay, so here's what's funny.
In the past, I've tried showing, you know, videos and evidence, because it was news reporting, and YouTube basically said, and this is not completely unreasonable, I want to add that, they were like, We will demonetize your video if you show graphic violence.
And I'm like, that I understand.
Everybody blurs that stuff.
You know, the videos are available online.
You can get access to them.
You know, we put stuff out on TimCast.com, but for the sake of YouTube, and for the sake of the fact that I try to make sure my videos I put out are as family reachable as possible, so that regular people can watch this stuff without worrying about what their kids might see.
I want families to be able to get the news.
So I take it seriously.
I'm slightly more lax than TV and their standards.
But here's my point.
I would blur.
If I had an image and I wanted to have it on screen, I would put a blur over it.
A light blur, so you can't see too much.
Same thing local news does and everyone else does.
I don't need to put a blur over the prosecution's key piece of evidence.
I mean, it's fake.
It's not real.
But I don't have to put a blur.
You know why?
Because you can't see anything!
It's amazing.
This is where we're at.
The closing arguments are gonna be interesting, because based on admitting this evidence, which the jury's gonna be like, I have no idea what that's a picture of, but the prosecution is hoping that they can just say, that is an image of Kyle Rittenhouse pointing his weapon at someone, which is insane, because it would mean Kyle Rittenhouse took off the weapon, flipped the strap to his other shoulder, pulled it up with his left hand, and he's not left-handed.
But the defense was not able to stop this.
So now, in closing arguments, what you will probably hear, and we'll see because it's coming up today, and for those listening on the podcast, we may already have updated information, but the prosecution is going to say, we showed you a video and photo of the defendant pointing a weapon at these people to provoke them.
That is not self-defense.
And if the jury is not strong-willed or of strong mental fortitude, they'll be like, wow, they did.
I'm not entirely sure the average person would fall for something like that, to be completely honest.
But you never know with these juries, so it is actually kind of scary.
So let's, I want to read through this because we have an amazing article from Legal Insurrections, Andrew Branca, and I gotta say, I was thinking about, I use Andrew Branca's legal analysis because, you know, he wrote the book on self-defense, on the law of self-defense, and I think when it comes to a case like this, he's probably one of the best analysts to look at this.
However, there is a fair point to be said that he's, you know, viewing it from the perspective of self-defense is important, must be protected, that's his bias.
That being said, Who better than an expert on self-defense to talk about this case in particular?
And maybe there's some bias in my reading his analysis, but he brings up really good points.
He writes this article, Getting Jurors to Imagine Provocation in Blurry Photo and Video, Rittenhouse Prosecution Endgame.
He also has another analysis where he says, Rittenhouse analysis states weak provocation argument is still the major threat to acquittal if they can convince the jury.
And at any moment, Rittenhouse even raised his gun one time, then you get intentional homicide.
You get guilty on all counts.
I hope I wasn't wrong about being wrong, because I said this a few weeks ago.
I was saying, I thought Kyle Rittenhouse was going to get life in prison because no juror was going to stick their neck out for this kid.
Nobody would stand on principle.
That's a scary prospect.
But then I started seeing how the judge was behaving.
He's not biased towards the defense or the prosecution.
I think he's done a fairly good job of calling out the prosecution in their dirty games, and I said, maybe Kyle Rittenhouse will get a fair trial.
Maybe the jury will actually hear a legitimate trial.
Of course, the left has been claiming the judge is biased, which is funny, because a lot of people said similar things about the judge in the Chauvin trial on the other side.
Now I'm not so sure.
The jury may be convinced by this false evidence and convict on all counts.
Again, I'll state.
And we'll read through the expert analysis, because my understanding is that what the prosecution argued is that Kyle Rittenhouse intentionally provoked Joseph Rosenbaum so that Rosenbaum would chase him, giving Rittenhouse a pretext for murder.
It's a bit circuitous of a plan, I might add, for a kid on the spot who's been rendering medical aid to people.
The idea that he'd be like, I really want to hurt someone, but I don't want to go to prison.
I'll trick him into attacking me.
And then they're going to try and prove that it's patently absurd.
But I do want to go through it.
The first thing, however, I want to show you is this tweet.
Even ice cream lies.
That's right, my friends.
That's what I tweeted because Ben and Jerry's tweeted.
The Rittenhouse trial displays yet again that our justice, they put quotes, system is racist.
How would this trial be going if it was a black 17 year old that crossed state lines illegally carrying an AR-15 and shot three white protesters?
We need real justice in the legal system.
This isn't it.
Ben and Jerry's?
Fire your social media person.
And I'll tell you why.
Not because they're biased.
Not because they don't like Kyle Rittenhouse.
Please.
If you disagree with Kyle Rittenhouse, you think he was wrong, you think he deserves jail, you're allowed to.
So long as you know the facts.
If Ben and Jerry's came out and said, a 17 year old, entering the fray, made a mistake, he should not have been there, bringing the weapon was unnecessary and would likely result in harm.
Even if he was attacked, this is his fault, and manslaughter, or whatever you want to argue, but as long as you know the facts.
I think there's fair arguments for manslaughter.
In fact, Kash Patel on Tim Cast IRL said he thought the jury might come back with a lesser charge.
I don't believe he's being charged with manslaughter, though, because the lesser included is reckless endangerment.
The point is, Ben and Jerry's implying Kyle Rittenhouse took a gun across state lines and shot three black protesters.
He did not.
He shot three white protesters.
Not that I think it matters!
Isn't this the crazy world we live in?
That the race of the person is somehow a factor in all of this?
Dude, people are people!
I don't care what your race is, I don't want you getting shot!
I want everybody to live peacefully.
And I'll tell you this, because I posted this on Facebook.
Joseph Rosenbaum was a really, really bad guy.
Committing atrocities against children.
And I mean it when I say atrocities.
He did the unspeakable, probably the most horrifying thing you could do to children.
And I wish he didn't die.
And I mean that.
I oppose the death penalty.
The dude was in a mental hospital.
I wish he stayed in his mental hospital.
That's the report we got that he got out of the mental hospital that morning.
He was still carrying his bag.
I wish he stayed there.
I don't want people to get hurt.
I don't want people to die.
And this is a tragic story that shouldn't have happened.
The dude was a monster.
But I don't believe in the death penalty.
That's just me.
You can disagree.
I know a lot of people do.
And that's why the judge was adamant about having the jury not know about Joseph Rosenbaum's past.
Because then they might actually give Kyle Rittenhouse a pass on those grounds.
And I don't believe that's the right thing to do.
I agree with the judge.
I agree with our legal system on this.
That being said, Ben and Jerry's propagating lies.
Lies.
Now let's go over to Andrew Branca's assessment.
Break down what he's saying.
Getting jurors to imagine provocation in a blurry video, the prosecution's endgame.
He was going to say, given the strength of Kyle's core claim of self-defense and the weakness of the state's attacks on that legal defense, it seems we're taking a look at the last desperate effort of the prosecution is making to try to drag something resembling a win out of the smoking pile of a trial, and that's to sell an incredibly weakly supported argument of provocation.
Bronca says, Kyle's core claim of self-defense is extremely robust.
Kyle's legal defense to the use of force charges against him is, of course, centered on the privilege of self-defense under Wisconsin law.
Having properly raised this legal defense at the start of these proceedings, the burden is now on the state to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
That doesn't mean the state has to disprove self-defense in its entirety.
It merely means the state has to disprove any of the four required elements of self-defense.
The four elements are innocence, imminence, proportionality, and reasonableness.
I also mentioned that the fifth element of self-defense, avoidance, does not generally apply in Wisconsin, in that there is no generalized legal duty to retreat before you can act in otherwise lawful self-defense.
That is the right law.
That is the right way it should be.
I do not believe in the idea of forced retreat.
If you are in a position... Let me slow down.
Personally, I do.
Personally, I do.
I will personally always try to retreat in the event a confrontation is coming.
I will always try to avoid causing harm to another person, even if they seek to cause harm to me.
That being said, if I'm in a position where I have to defend others, or myself, and retreat would put me or someone else in potential risk, I will not do it.
That is to say, only if my life is threatened.
So I think it is reasonable, in my opinion, to try and avoid a conflict.
In this instance, I don't believe- and Kyle Reynolds did retreat!
But I think you should be able to stand your ground.
I really do.
There is, however, what might be thought of a backdoor avenue attack on self-defense, and that target becomes available where the defendant can be said to have provoked the attack against, which he then defended himself.
Generally, I treat provocation as a facet of the element of innocence, but Wisconsin law breaks it out as if it were a separate element, so that's how I'll treat it here.
If we had any doubt what the form of attack the prosecution will bring to bear in their closing argument on Monday, that was resolved during yesterday's conference hearing, so this is last week, the meeting in court outside the presence of the jury in which the parties argue over the precise instructions that will be given to the jury for the use in their deliberations.
This is a big win.
This is a huge, huge win for the prosecution.
They got the judge to say he will instruct them on provocation.
That doesn't mean they'll win.
It means the judge will tell the jury, if you think Rittenhouse provoked this, you find him not guilty because he provoked the attack.
That's a big win.
If they did not include that, they'd say, if you think he was defending himself, basically.
With provocation, though, the jury still has to be convinced it happened.
He says, it's worth noting the jury can effectively only find the defendant guilty based upon a jury instruction that they have received from the judge.
An instruction withheld from the jury necessarily withholds a path to conviction.
Conversely, an instruction provided to the jury necessarily provides an additional path to conviction.
There's also something called jury nullification, I might add, and I'm not a lawyer, I'm not gonna pretend to know, but my understanding is that a jury could unanimously come back and find a defendant not guilty on all counts simply because they believe it shouldn't be illegal.
So, if there is a crime of, like, jaywalking, someone's on trial, and the judge says, if the state has proven he has crossed the street in the middle of the road and not in a crosswalk, you must find him guilty, the jury could all say, like, jaywalking shouldn't be illegal, so we say not guilty.
And they nullify.
And the... I don't know exactly how that works for the most part, but that's my general understanding.
He goes on to say, yesterday the state informed the court that they wanted the jury to receive
the Wisconsin criminal jury instructions on provocation in the context of self-defense,
which is known by its identifying number WCJI 815. The defense naturally argued against this
instruction, attempting to deny the state the path to conviction. The state, however, won that
argument. Accordingly, the jury will be instructed on the law of provocation and therefore the jury
has been given a provocation-based path to conviction. This was a critical win for the
the prosecution.
The self-defense-based defense narratives on each of the use of force charges against Kyle are all very robust, and not readily subject to disproof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Without provocation, the state would have found itself facing inevitable defeat, attacking the core self-defense justification on any of those charges.
By winning the provocation instruction, however, The state has the potential to now simply upend the trial chessboard and sweep away all those self-defense pieces so favorably positioned on the board.
I personally don't believe it's going to fly with the jury.
But I don't know.
I'm not a psychic and I get things wrong.
I'll tell you this.
You know what I usually do a good job on doing?
Sourcing, fact-checking, and I still get things wrong.
You know what I'm not good at?
Seeing the future.
I'll put it this way.
I often say, like, 51% of the time I'll get it right.
I have a tendency to be like, if X, then Y. However, beyond that, typically it's all gonna be, who knows?
I thought there was gonna be a red wave in 2018.
There wasn't.
So who knows?
I'm more deferential at this point to we have to just wait and see.
So long as we get our facts right and we understand the circumstances, I throw it to you to figure out what you think might occur in this case.
Now, Branca's written an updated legal analysis yesterday.
State's weak provocation is still the major threat to acquittal, saying, in the course of, you know, blah, blah, blah, we'll consider what's going on, criminal charges versus self-defense.
He says, although it's now clear the state plans to base their narrative of guilt in this case on the legal doctrine of provocation, provocation was never mentioned as an issue in this trial until the sudden discovery of the unicorn drone footage.
When ADA Binger presented the state's theory of this case to the jury in its opening statement, he never so much does mentions provocation.
I want to propose to you, if you're not on Twitter and you don't follow me, I want you to hear this.
If ADA Binger...
was caught in a riot.
He would run to Kyle Rittenhouse for safety.
You know it.
I know it.
Binger knows it.
The judge knows it.
Krause knows it.
Does the jury know it?
Perhaps.
No reasonable person who has seen this.
In fact, I would have to argue this points towards acquittal.
Seriously think about it.
During the trial, They were playing this video, the video of the blurry footage.
Kyle Rittenhouse gets up, walks over, standing next to the judge and behind him, and the prosecutors leans in to watch the video.
No one bats an eye.
No bailiff is called.
No one's threatened.
No one fears Kyle Rittenhouse.
Why?
He was acting in self-defense.
I'll throw it to our good friend, Richie McGinnis.
And that time, I mean that literally.
Normally, when I say good friend of the show, I'm sometimes being facetious.
No, Richie's a good friend.
We're gonna hopefully have him on soon.
After Kyle Rittenhouse shot Joseph Rosenbaum, Richie McGinnis didn't flee, didn't panic, didn't run, didn't beg for mercy.
He rendered aid.
And there's a simple question there.
Mr. McInnes, why didn't you run from Kyle Rittenhouse after he just shot a guy?
Well, I'm not gonna speak for Richie.
But hopefully we'll get him back after the verdict, and we'll have him come and talk about his experiences.
But I think it's fair to say Richie was not threatened by Kyle Rittenhouse.
Why?
Because he wasn't attacking Kyle, and in the moment, Richie knew Rosenbaum was attacking Kyle.
Kyle fired in self-defense.
And Richie, whether consciously or subconsciously, did not flee.
Now, one could argue his desire to render aid to Rosenbaum overwhelmed his fear of any potential harm.
But I think it's fair to say it never occurred to Richie that Kyle would attack him.
I don't think so.
I think those of us who have experienced these situations, we know the likes of Kyle Rittenhouse and Ryan Boucher and who these people are.
I have walked alongside the Oath Keepers filming them as they carried their weapons.
I have never once feared I would be shot by them.
As for Antifa and the far left, I'll be honest.
I have walked alongside armed leftists, and I did not think they would fire on me.
But I still had that feeling in my mind to be ready in the event anything does happen.
That is to say, I've been to events where I've seen leftists armed and thought to myself, no one's gonna do anything like that, but keep your eyes open, just be careful.
I have gone to events with the right, and I've never even been worried about it.
Why?
People on the right are gun nuts for the most part.
Tend to be, I shouldn't say they are.
They tend to have training and discipline.
Even in the moments where we've seen people on the right draw their weapons, they haven't fired.
But we see the left.
We see what happens with the Chazz opening on that SUV.
We see what happens with Aaron Danielson and the far leftist.
Now, there's a crazy crackpot, you know, right-wingers, far-right, you know, whatever you want to call them, who have committed atrocities.
Absolutely.
But these are like lone gunmen single events, and you can see, you know, as it's going down, what their intent is.
When I see a regular dude with an American flag and a Gadsden patch and he's armed, I'm just like, yo, I see that all the time.
Just because someone has a weapon doesn't mean they're gonna use it.
People have cars.
I never expect someone to ram me with their car, but sometimes it happens.
The reality is, you, and I, and everybody else who has seen the evidence, and many leftists, if you were caught in the riot, and you know this, And there was fire and bricks being thrown and gunshots going off.
You would run towards the likes of Kyle Rittenhouse.
Now, many of these leftists who don't know the truth probably wouldn't.
A.D.A.
Binger knows the truth.
He knows what kind of person Kyle Rittenhouse is.
He knows.
He's making his arguments.
I think it's fair to say the state should make their arguments.
He shouldn't cheat like he has.
But the judge, the prosecution, the defense, they would run full speed to Kyle.
The closing arguments are coming, so we will see what happens.
